Skip to main content

Full text of "Hellenistic architecture in Syria.."

See other formats

in Syria 













Hellenistic Architecture 
in Syria 













Published December, 1917 

Accepted by the Department of Art and Archaeology 
April, 1912 

Printed in the United States of America 

*'*>' ***'* >"'' **"*^ "*' ^ > **'* 

* * * V* 1 * *^, * *'* -' * **" 


The purpose of this thesis is to show that the architecture of 
Syria up to the end of the third century A.D. was Hellenistic. 
In general only dated monuments have been considered, or 
those whose period can be determined with certainty. With 
these restrictions, all the monuments of Northern Central Syria 
and of the Djebel Hauran, showing details of any importance, 
have been considered. Baalbec, as being in process of publica- 
tion, has been omitted except for occasional reference. South 
of the Hauran only the ruins at Arak il-Emir have been in- 
cluded, with those of Djerash and Amman for reference. 
Monuments published by Mr. H. C. Butler since April, 1912, 
are not included. 

In the spelling of names the system has been followed that 
is employed by Dr. Enno Littmann in the publications of the 
American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900 
without the use of diacritical signs. For a clearer illustration 
of some details reference has been made to the photographs 
taken by the same expedition. Full sets of these may be se- 
cured on application to the American Archaeological Expedi- 
tion to Syria, University Library, Princeton, N. J., U. S. A. 

I desire to take this opportunity to extend to Professors 
Allan Marquand and Charles Rufus Morey my grateful 
acknowledgment for their guidance and criticism in my studies 
in archaeology: but especially I acknowledge my very great 
indebtedness to Professor Howard Crosby Butler. It was at 
his suggestion that this investigation was begun, and his in- 
valuable aid, both in material and suggestion, alone made it 

Merwick, Princeton University, 

April, 1912. 
Revised, July, 1917. 



In his "Kleinasien," Strzygowski, speaking of the architec- 
ture of the East in the fourth century, has pointed out that it 
"nicht anderes als eine Art Nachbliite sein diirfte von dem, 
was die hellenistische Kunst des Orients auf diesem Gebiete 
schon friiher geschaffen haben muss." 1 and again, "Was Kon- 
stantin in seinen Monumentalbauten an den Anfang der christ- 
lichen Reichskunst stellte, das war nicht funkelnagelneu aus 
dem Boden gestampft, sondern nur moglich im Gefolge einer 
grossen Entwicklung der hellenistischen Architektur in den 
Grosstadten des Orients. Von ihr aber wissen wir bis heute so 
gut wiegarnichts." 2 

We have, indeed, only too scanty remains of this developed 
Hellenistic art, such as must have flourished at Antioch. Yet 
in the rest of Syria, and especially at Palmyra, there is a wealth 
of material. Little or no attention has been paid to the archi- 
tecture of Syria beyond the splendid publication of the monu- 
ments by M. de Vogue and by Howard Crosby Butler. Refer- 
ences to it fall into two classes; some simply assume it to be 
Greek, while others call Roman everything that belongs to our 
era, the period of Roman political supremacy 3 either classifica- 
tion being made without any specific details or proof. Butler 
alone has directly denied the Roman influence in the architec- 
ture of this time, 4 and he suggested this investigation of details. 

As was stated in the preface, it has been necessary in gen- 
eral to consider only dated monuments. Yet the number of 
these is so great, and the evidence they offer so varied and so 
striking, that only a presentation of details by single monuments 
could suffice. Furthermore, such strong Oriental influence was, 
in many cases, present beside the Greek, that only the presenta- 
tion of the monuments as a whole could lead clearly to the 
necessary conclusions. This has caused much borrowing from 
Butler's publications. Without his permission to use his ma- 
terial it would have been impossible to present this chapter in 
Syrian architecture. 


Syrian* fribriuments have' been divided into two great classes; 
those built before Roman dominion, and those succeeding it. 5 
But it by no means follows that the advent of Roman political 
power meant the advent of Roman artistic supremacy. Pom- 
pey's campaign was too hurried to be lasting even in its military 
results: and later we find Antony attempting to plunder Pal- 
myra as an alien and hostile city. 6 

The effect of Roman conquest upon the conquered territory 
was political reorganization. Laws and government they im- 
posed, but religion and the arts they took unto themselves from 
the conquered people. It was as if the Roman obeyed literally 
the command 

Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento ; 
Hae tibi erunt artes ; pacisque imponere morem, 
Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. 

As Butler has said in speaking of the region of the South 7 
"What we call the 'Roman architecture' was not an art 
that was brought from overseas and transplanted in new soil, 
but represented the mere extension of the art of one portion of 
Syria to another portion from Greek Syria to Semitic Syria 
a process which Rome, with her wonderful power for organi- 
zation and amalgamation accomplished as doubtless no other 
power could have done." 

The comparative peace and security afforded by Roman rule 
and the stable organization of civil affairs made possible the 
further development of an architecture that was an heritage 
when the Romans first came and which had already made its 
force felt at Rome. 8 To show this is the aim of this discussion 
but for the Romans to introduce an art of their own was im- 
possible if for no other reason than that they had none, but 
were borrowing from just these provinces, with which conquest 
had brought them into contact, and were carrying home the 
spoil that made Rome the clearing house of the world. In the 
Imperial architecture of Rome we find only another species of 
Hellenistic architecture with certain local modifications, the 
results of its new environment. Even the strongest adherents 
of Rome as an artistic center, originating rather than receptive, 
claim only the arch and all that it involves as an individual 
feature. Yet we shall see that the arch was used in Asia 
Minor in Hellenistic times before Rome had finished her strug- 
gles with Carthage. And it is doubtful whether Etruria, in 

bequeathing the arch to the other Italian peoples, did not merely 
pass on what she herself had received from the East. 

It would be absurd enough to speak of Rome introducing 
forms of her art upon another, when she had received them 
from the common parent ; but a worse field than Syria for such 
a transplanting could scarcely be imagined. As Diehl has said 
in speaking of Syria "In spite of the profound influence ex- 
erted by Greek civilization, in spite of the long duration of 
Roman domination, the country had always remained 'fort par- 
ticulariste' Assuredly the great cities, such as Antioch, had 
become, quickly enough, capitals of Hellenism but, beneath 
this veneer of Hellenism, there persisted, above all in the coun- 
try, the characteristic traits of the Semitic race, so deeply im- 
pressed on their souls that Syrian Christianity took its special 
character from them." 9 

Negative criticism in itself is worthless. Therefore it has 
not been sufficient to show that the Syrian monuments are not 
Roman : the attempt has also been made to recognize those ele- 
ments that are Oriental, and particularly to notice original 
features, such as the arched intercolumniation, which show that 
this Hellenism in Syria was not the last effort of a decadence, 
but a living growth, possessing in itself the power for further 
and greater development. 

Comparison has been made most frequently with Hellenistic 
monuments of Asia Minor ; not that Syria necessarily borrowed 
from Asia Minor, but because Asia Minor best represents the 
stage of Greek civilization before and during the period under 
consideration. Had we any knowledge of Antioch, the capital 
of the world, which was by far the most influential center of 
the East, there would probably be no thesis to prove. As it is, 
we must turn to other and less important centers for the 
material for comparison. 

Attention has already been called to the fact that the Syrian 
architecture shows a quite different spirit from that shown in 
the monuments at Rome. 10 And, as the consideration of the 
individual monuments will show, this is a Greek rather than 
Roman spirit. 

In the case of the earliest monuments it is, of course, impossi- 
ble to deny that they are a direct Hellenistic heritage. The 
Kasr il-Abd at Arak il-Emir, the temples and tomb at Suweda, 
and the two temples at Si were all built before the Romans 
could secure even a definite political influence in the country. 


Yet, even when we come to the first and second centuries A.D., 
when marks of a Roman influence, if there was ever to be one, 
must surely have appeared, we find still the Hellenistic archi- 
tecture, maintaining greater purity than its cousin at Rome and 
developing within itself new features that will appear later in 
the conglomerate style of Rome. 

We have already said that the mass of evidence, the wide 
unfamiliarity of the subject, the presence of different threads 
of artistic influence, and above all the organic growth of the 
architecture, necessitated a chronological presentation of indi- 
vidual monuments. It will be well therefore, before proceed- 
ing to the evidence, to state briefly the general conclusions 
which that evidence demands. 

There are very few monuments that do not show some native 
or Oriental influence. This is strongest in the Hauran, owing 
to the power of the Naba-taeans, and there, in one period, that 
of the temples at Si, its strength amounts to an almost complete 
eclipse of Greek tradition. 

The temple plans, while in general following Greek tradition, 
show, at times, native modifications, as at Siiweda, Kanawat, 
Si, and at Palmyra. 

Certain individual characteristics were doubtless caused by 
the material used. The extreme hardness of the basalt was evi- 
dently the reason for unchanneled columns everywhere in the 
South and for the total absence of dentil courses. On the other 
hand, we find fluted shafts at Palmyra, and dentils at both 
Burdj Bakirha and Dmer and in other Syrian buildings. 

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of all the monu- 
ments is their purity of proportion. We shall see in the discus- 
sion of the various buildings, how much more closely the 
entablature was conformed to the Greek proportions than to 
those of Rome. After all it was only natural that the Hellenis- 
tic tradition should remain purer in a country where it was 
opposed only by one and a totally different influence, than in 
the Imperial city where countless varieties and shades of 
artistic expression were mingled. 

In all the monuments the acanthus is of the crisp 'V section 
that is characteristically Greek, and which the earliest Italian 
examples, that are purely Hellenistic, also show. 11 Again, in 
the acanthus rinceaux, at a time when Rome covered the stalks 
completely in a meaningless manner, the purity of the Greek 
tradition was maintained. 12 This purity in decoration is uni- 


versal. There is none of that florid excess of ornament that dis- 
tinguishes or mars the Imperial architecture. The temple 
of Burdj Bakirha to take but one example, is a striking contrast 
to that of Antoninus and Faustina : and, in the creation of new 
types, such as the composite capital, the purity of the original 
forms is retained. There are no such florid creations as the 
capitals of the Caracalla baths. 

The typical Roman temple plan with deep pronaos and one 
or more columns on the return, does not occur. 13 Still more 
significant is the fact that the modillion cornice, inseparable 
from the Roman order, is usually replaced by a cymation. 14 

On the other hand there is abundant evidence to show that 
Syrian architecture had a growth and development of its own, 
but a growth and development that arose from the earlier Hel- 
lenistic tradition. With the exception of Dmer, the fruits of 
this development lie beyond our period, that is, after the end 
of the third century ; but, in the time under consideration, sev- 
eral new features were evolved that were, later, to furnish the 
material for that marvellous development in church architec- 
ture which took the West several centuries to equal. 

The arching of the entablature over the central intercolum- 
niation was the most significant of these 'innovations.' Its 
earliest appearance in Syria is in the case of Nabataean 
monuments to be quoted later, and, in the discussion, it will be 
seen what use of the arch was made by the Asia Minor Greeks. 
A reason, purely theoretical, has been there advanced in sup- 
port of the direct Hellenistic rather than the Eastern origin, so 
far as Syria is concerned. On the other hand it must be 
admitted that this arching of the entablature first occurs in a 
temple in which the Eastern influence is much the stronger, 
although in no other detail of the temple does this influence 
occur in the introduction of a form or principle of construction. 

Another 'innovation' is the development of the niche as a 
wall decoration. It appears as early as the arched entablature 
and its use steadily increases in each succeeding period. 

Perhaps the most interesting feature, if not the most impor- 
tant for our field, is the development of the 'adyton' in the 
temple cella, and then the creation of a 'crypt' by the vaulting 
of the cella floor. The addition of side chambers in the 'adyton' 
gives a prototype for the sanctuary of a Christian church. In 
this case, as in others, limitation of space and field has pre- 
vented the treatment of much of very great interest. An even 


greater handicap has been the lack of any systematic treat- 
ment of the development of Roman architecture. However, 
the latter can only be of use after there has been a clear recog- 
nition of the relations of the Imperial arcnitecture to those of 
the countries that came under the Roman sway. 


The Kasr il-Abd, at Arak il-Emir, in the country east of the 
Jordan and south of the Hauran was first seriously described 
by M. de Vogue in his Temple de Jerusalem. 15 It has been 
noticed by many travellers and explorers, 16 but its complete 
publication and description are due to Mr. Howard Crosby 
Butler. 17 In endeavoring to single out the Greek influence in 
the architecture, reference will be made to his work alone. He 
has given in full the history of the site, so far as is known, and 
the evidence for the probable date of the Kasr il-Abd. 

In the megalithic character of the masonry, M. de Saulcy has 
seen Phoenician influence, while in the frieze of lions we can- 
not but be reminded of the almost identical one at Susa. 1& 
Indeed it seems highly probable that in this monument several 
lines of artistic tradition met to receive a more or less free 
handling by the builders, as is certainly the case with the Greek, 
with which alone we are concerned. 

To take up the details, in the north porch there are plinths 
beneath the column bases, a use occurring as early as the III 
Cent. B.C. in the propylon of the agora at Magnesia. 19 The 
plinths are not of one piece with the base as was the Roman 
custom, 20 but are separate blocks, as at Priene; and Magnesia 
shows the same cutting of the entire base, both of the columns 
and pilasters, on the lowest drum of the shaft. 21 At a height 
of 16 cm. above the base the shaft carries a projecting ring, 
which Mr. Butler believes had to do with quarrying or trans- 
portation. 22 The profile of the base itself is, curiously enough, 
very close to that of the best period of Greek architecture. As 
the Hellenistic period advanced the base scotia was cut back 
more and more, giving greater prominence to the upper torus, 23 
but here the hollow of the scotia lies very little nearer the shaft 
center than the convex of the upper torus, 24 as in the base of 
the Erectheion 25 and of the monument of Lysicrates. 26 

The shafts are unchanneled as is almost universal throughout 
Syria. 27 The capitals, which, in Mr. Butler's restoration, are 
assigned to the north porch, are a variety of the Greek Corin- 

thian. 28 In their general appearance, in the arrangement of the 
rows of leaves, and in the amount of bell left bare, they are 
most like those from the Tholos at Epidauros. 29 Yet the 
springing of the central spirals is different, the abacus is lower, 
and the leaves, which are of a water plant, are uncut, a capital 
instance of a native translation of a Greek form. The type of 
leaf and the disposition in a double row is precisely that found 
on the base of a pier of the second order, 30 the upper in the 

The entablature is an adaptation of the Greek Doric. Ar- 
chitrave, metopes and triglyphs are of one block. The propor- 
tion of architrave to frieze, I '.1.14, is almost exactly that of the 
Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros: 31 that of the triglyph to 
metope, on the central block of the epistyle, is about one to one 
and one half, the normal proportion. 32 The upper end of the 
triglyph groove is finished by a straight horizontal line, instead 
of a curve as in the best period ; but the triglyphs themselves 
are flush with the face of the architrave 33 and do not project 
as might easily have been the case if they were copied from a 
model of the Seleucid period. 34 

The smaller order shows immediately above the upper torus 
of the base a double row of leaves. 35 This also occurs above 
the base of a column from the triumphal arch at Dj crash 36 and 
above the bases of the columns of the fagade of the temple at 
Suweda, 37 where, however, the leaves are inverted with sharp 
tongues showing between: Also in the peribolos of the Temple 
of Baal Samin at Si 38 two sorts of bases occur. One has a 
single row of leaves, that are broad and cut ; the other, above 
a broad inverted cyma a narrow one that might easily have 
received a carved inverted row of leaves. Such a motif is cer- 
tainly not Attic Greek, but probably of Egyptian 39 origin, or 
Persian, 40 occuring rarely in the Occident, as on the votive 
column at Delphi 41 and at the so-called Baths of Diana at 
Nimes. 42 

The "Persian" capitals, found in the porch and interior, were 
apparently intended to be finished, either by finer carving, or by 
applying metal details. 43 Capitals with bulls' heads that might 
represent the finished form occur in the "Sanctuary of the 
Horns" at Delos, 44 and in an example in the British Museum 
from Cyprus 45 which doubtless were the result of the same 
Persian influence. 46 

The string course running below the lion frieze is certainly 


not Oriental, nor is the cornice that crowns the restored facade. 
These details, with the bases of the lower order, and the en- 
tablature, are Hellenic elements in a monument, otherwise 
thoroughly Oriental in conception and execution. They are 
extremely important, however, because they are by far the 
earliest examples of Greek influence in Syria that we have. The 
date assigned by Mr. Butler, 47 the beginning of the third cen- 
tury B.C., cannot be too early in view of the resemblances 
mentioned above to Greek work of the fifth and fourth 


The Tomb of Hamrath, ca. 85 ? B.C. 48 Apart from the in- 
scription 49 the only Oriental feature of this tomb would be 
the stepped pyramid that probably rose above the entablature. 50 
M. de Vogue found the first course of this still in situ, 51 and in 
his plate I, shows part of a second course. Just such a crown- 
ing is found above the Lion Tomb at Knidos, 52 thought to 
have been erected by the Athenians after their victory at Knidos 
in 394 B.C. 53 At Alinda, now Dmirji Dressi, is a tomb, on a 
crepidoma of four steps, distyle in antis, with unfluted Doric 
columns, crowned by a flat mass of masonry, one course high. 54 
Curious combinations of both this rectangular crowning and 
the elements of a stepped pyramid occur in the fagades at 
Petra 55 and at Hegr 56 pointing probably to an Oriental origin of 
religious significance. 

The Alinda tomb and numerous other examples such as the 
Mausoleion at Halikaranassos, 57 the Nereid Monument, 58 the 
Sarcophagus of the Mourners, 59 and Theron's tomb at Akra- 
gas, 60 show that the general type of rectangular tombs with 
heavy crownings was familiar, and not confined to any one 
part of the Greek world. 

The architectural forms of Hamrath's tomb are purely 
Greek. The unfluted Doric half-columns have no bases, and 
are 5.179 lower diameters in height, a proportion that belongs 
to the best period. 61 Like the best Greek work also is the 
slight inward batter. 62 The smooth shafts, almost universal 
in Syria, and the absence from the regulae of guttae and of 
mutules from the cornice are provincial traits that may very 
probably be due to the extreme hardness of the basalt. The 
profile of the echinus, while not that of the best period, is 
better than that in some Hellenistic examples, 63 and, further- 


more, in the greater projection of the echinus, with abacus, 
in proportion to its height, again the imitation of good Greek 
models is shown. 64 

The narrow architrave, however, is a sign of decadence, and 
the distribution of triglyphs, three to each intercolumnar space, 
is characteristic of the Seleucid epoch, whose influence also 
appears in the Macedonian helmet with pendants and other 
armorial ornaments between the columns. Were the tomb that 
of a warrior these might be otherwise explained, but though 
Hamrath was a woman we cannot conceive of her as an Ama- 
zon, and we find a similar use of armor for decoration on the 
barriers between the columns of the second storey of the Stoa 
of Eumenes at Pergamon 65 and in the Bouleuterion at Miletos. 66 
The placing of a triglyph at each angle, and the consequent 
widening of the metope, and the narrowing of the outermost 
intercolumniations, 67 all are Greek. At Rome, even in the 
Theatre of Marcellus, where some Greek influence persists, the 
Vitruvian rule of a half metope at the end is observed. 68 

The profile of the gutter is a cyma as might be expected in a 
monument executed under Hellenistic influence. Mr. Butler 
has assigned an approximate date of the early first century 
B.C. 69 

The Peripteral Temple. This temple, 70 which Mr. Butler 
dates 71 somewhere between the Tomb of Hamrath, ca. 85 ? B.C., 
and the temples at Si, 33/32 B.C.-3O A.D., is included in this 
discussion, which properly has to do only with dated monu- 
ments, for the sake of illustrating the gradual trend in the 
Hauran towards an almost wholly Oriental style, as at Si. 

The building has decided irregularities. The plan 72 shows 
seven columns in the epinaos, a peculiarity found also in the 
Temple of Helios (?) at Kanawat, 73 and arising perhaps from 
an Oriental and religious origin. 74 

It is possible that the fagade is of different date from the 
rest of the peristyle. Its unfluted columns 75 have an inverted 
row of leaves above Attic bases; 76 their capitals exceed one 
lower diameter in height; and their intercolumniations dimin- 
ish from the center. On the sides and rear, however, the capi- 
tals are less than a diameter, and the intercolumniations are 
equal, except those next to the corners which are widened for 
the width of pronaos and epinaos. 77 Mr. Butler informs me 
that the astragal on the fagade angle capital is on the shaft, 
while in the other cases it is part of the capital, and that it may 


be that the temple was originally prostyle and was afterwards 
made peripteral. Both capitals and bases are very like those 
of the same period in the temple of Baal Samin at Si. 78 

The architrave is made up of two stone beams, laid side by 
side over each intercolumniation. On the rear and sides the 
inside face of the inner of these is plain ; the outer one has four 
equal fasciae inclined slightly backward, beneath a narrow per- 
pendicular fascia, all with quirked edges. 79 This was probably 
true of the fagade also, as originally constructed. Its present 
condition, however, shows an architrave, also dilithic, with an 
inner member treated precisely as the outer of each pair on the 
sides and rear, and an outer one carved with a broad band below 
three narrow fasciae, decreasing upwards. The broad band is 
decorated with a continuous pattern of oblique squares with 
rosettes in the centers and pellets in the angles, 80 a motif that 
occurs in the Temple of Dionysos at Pergamon, of the III Cent. 
B.C. 81 

Doubtless in the rebuilding, the old outer half of the archi- 
trave was used for the inner half, and an entirely new outer 
member substituted for the old. 82 When this reconstruction 
took place, we, of course, lacking inscriptions, cannot tell. Yet 
if we judge from the capitals of the fagade which, while nec- 
essarily copying the older ones in design, by their height may 
point to a Nabataean influence, it must have taken place before 
40 A.D. when the Hauran came under Roman sway. This 
would also seem to be the case judging by the curious orna- 
mental projecting course above the architrave, with a filleted 
cyma recta on the inner face and panels on the soffit of the 
overhanging portion, decorated geometrically, which is no more 
Roman than Greek. 

The mouldings and ornaments of the portal jambs are almost 
all Oriental. Only an ovolo with egg and dart and a bead 
recall the Greek. In the niches that flank the door the same is 
true, though the cyma reversa also occurs. But while both 
the Classic and the Oriental appear in the profiles and in the 
decoration, the use of the niche itself as an ornamental feature 
is purely Eastern. 83 Strzygowski has discussed its origin 84 and 
regards its use in Syrian temples as a translation from earlier 
brick constructions in the East. The non-Greek charac- 
ter of the niches here is further shown by their 
"raking cornices" that do not terminate upon the cornice 
proper or reproduce its profiles. Of very different inspiration 


and execution are the "raking cornices" above the niches of 
the peribolos wall from the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphro- 
disias. 85 The "raking cornices" at Suweda are carved in re- 
lief on the single block which stands above the crowning mould- 
ings of the niche itself. 86 The upper corners of this block are 
notched out to fit the courses of the wall. On its face in the 
"pediment" is an eight-lobed disk, an Eastern ornament pre- 
cisely like those found by Mr. Doughty far to the south of 
Petra. 87 This triangular decoration may not be derived from 
the form of the Greek pediment, but from the zig-zag or tri- 
angle ornament so common on fagades in the East. 88 This 
same motif, more fully developed in a later period, dominates 
the great frieze of Mshatta. 89 There is no feeling for a "pedi- 
mental" crowning of the niche ; for later, when the arch is in- 
troduced, as in the temple at Atil, 90 the termination of the 
niche is also a niche. 91 

It is interesting to notice also that the lower edge of the 
"tympanum" block is cut away in the center, thus forming 
what is a very early example in Syria of a flat relieving arch. 


Temple of Baal Samm, 33/32-13/12 B.C. 92 A very com- 
plete discussion of the fragments from this place and of the 
periods to which they belong has been given by Mr. Butler; 93 
the dating has been discussed by Fr. Savignac 94 and by Dr. 
Littmann. 95 Of interest to us are only those details of the 
second period, with mixed Classic and Oriental elements, in 
which was placed the Temple at Suweda by the analogy of its 
forms. 96 In this period Mr. Butler has placed the temple 
base mould, the two columns of the porch, the architrave dec- 
orated with oblique squares, and the details of the peribolos 
colonnade. The base mould is unclassic. The columns in the 
porch have capitals very like those at Suweda 97 to which we 
refer for the question of origin. 

The development of the leaves to the acanthus form in the 
examples from Si would seem to show that a classic influence 
was felt even in the older examples, in spite of their Oriental 
form. Just such an influence must have been that which pro- 
duced the capitals 98 of the peribolos which is walled. 99 The 
influence of the Doric and Ionic orders is evident, and the forms 
under discussion have been well named "Nabataean" transla- 


tions. 100 It is interesting to see that in the case of the "Ionic" 
the borrowing was evidently made from a capital of the "Her- 
mogenes" type, 101 as we should naturally expect. The archi- 
trave, decorated with oblique squares, has been sufficiently dis- 
cussed under the Temple at Suweda, which see. The leaves 
above the bases of the Nabataean "Ionic" columns of the peri- 
bolos and those from the temple itself 102 recall very strongly 
the examples from Suweda, although the base leaves in the 
peribolos are not inverted. In both however the acanthus ap- 
pears, a stronger classic manifestation, as in the leaves of the 
temple capitals. Of greater interest to us is the adjoining 
building, the so-called Temple of Dushara. 

The Temple of Dushara. This monument whose complete 
publication has appeared in the Publications of the Princeton 
University Archaeological Expedition to Syria 103 had pre- 
viously been described by its discoverer, Mr. Howard Crosby 
Butler, in the Florilegium Melchior de Vogue. 104 

In plan, as well as in execution of details, there is little that 
is classic about the temple. As in the Temple of Baal Samin 
there is a suggestion of the Corinthian order in the foliate 
capital and in the entablature with its three divisions, besides 
the addition here of an Attic base. The capital, with its great 
acanthus leaves, is only another of the "Nabataean" type 105 
that we have seen in one form or another with more or less 
influence of the Corinthian, at Arak il-Emir, at Suweda, and at 
the nearby Temple of Baal Samin. Still the Oriental character 
predominates, and it is just this that makes the suggested dat- 
ing, between 33/32-13/12 B.C. and about 30 A.D. the only 
possible one. 106 Were the temple earlier, the style would be 
overwhelmingly classic, as in the Tomb of Hamrath ; or, also, if 
later, as in the temples at Atil and Kanawat. Such a prepon- 
derance of Oriental forms, with a slight infusion of the classic, 
as shown in this monument, can belong only to the third archi- 
tectural period in the Hauran. This begins with the rule of 
Herod the Great in 23 B.C. and lasts until nearly the end 
of the first century. And the inscription, mentioning Philip 
the Tetrarch 107 gives a terminus ad quern of about 30 A.D. 

The date of the temple is all the more important because of 
a feature of the very greatest interest, namely the arched en- 
tablature. It is impossible to doubt the correctness of Mr. 
Butler's restoration, based on existing fragments, which fur- 
nishes us with the earliest known example of this construction. 


Without attempting to go into the question of the arch and 
its origins, it is of great importance here to recognize the ex- 
istence of examples in Hellenistic architecture from which the 
Syrians could have borrowed it, along with the other classical 
forms, if they did not take it directly from the East. 

The principle of the arch was recognized and used in Asia 
Minor before any possibility of an influence from Rome. At 
Priene, both the great city gates have vaulted entrances which 
have been asserted to be surely fourth century work. 108 In the 
podium of the Propylaea of Samothrace, 109 built by Ptolemy 
II, 285-247 B.C., is an arched passage. At Pergamon the con- 
struction of barrel vaults, and the transition from them to cross 
vaults, built of regularly cut stones, had reached a high degree 
of perfection as early as the third, or certainly as the second, 
century B.C. 110 And the work of an Attalid at Athens, in the 
stoa of Eumenes II, 197-159 B.C., is a series of arches con- 
structed of voussoirs of cut stone. 111 At Priene, again, in the 
assembly hall, dating from about 200 B.C., 112 there is an arched 
window; and the agora door, of about 150 B.C., has an arch 
with profiled voussoirs. 113 The stones of a similarly profiled 
archivolt have been found in the ephebeion of the gymnasium, 
II Cent. B.C. They belonged to the arch of a vaulted statue 
niche in the wall, flanked by an entablature supported by Cor- 
inthian half columns. In the restoration of this in the Priene 
publication 114 we may see the prototype of the arched central 
intercolumniation which now concerns us. 

Strzygowski has said that while the door arch in itself was 
native in Mesopotamia, its use upon columns was first carried 
out in Hellenistic times, perhaps in Seleucia on Tigris. 115 Un- 
doubtedly the door arch originated in Mesopotamia and from 
there it must have come to the Greeks of Asia Minor. But it is 
from the latter, rather, that the Greek architects in Syria bor- 
rowed it. For, otherwise, had they taken it directly from the 
East, it would be the only instance in Syrian architecture of an 
Oriental form with Greek decoration. Of direct borrowing 
from the East there are scores of examples, but always in the 
guise of an Oriental decoration that is placed upon a Hellenis- 
tic form. No better instance could be cited than this temple 
of Dushara, with its bare outline of the Corinthian order and 
three part entablature, executed in thoroughly Oriental manner. 

Strzygowski has also said that the arching of the entablature 
was artistic rather than constructive. 116 He contradicts R. von 


Schneider who believes that its introduction was due to a cen- 
tral intercolumniation too wide for the horizontal architrave. 117 
In support of this he cites various examples in which the inter- 
columniation that was arched is narrower than the rest. 118 But, 
of his examples, the only one that is earlier than the third cen- 
tury A.D. is not Eastern, but the Purgatorium of the Isis 
temenos at Pompeii 119 and here the arching is the heading of a 
niche and the date is the time of Nero. Now the latter is ante- 
dated by the Temple of Dushara, and in the Hauran there is 
another instance of arched entablature dating from the second 
century and probably three others. Furthermore in all of 
these the central intercolumniation is not only broader than the 
rest, but in two of the cases whose dates are not certain, it is 
so broad that it could be spanned only by an arch. 120 For con- 
venience a list of the Syrian examples with their dates is added 

Si Temple of Dushara 121 33 B.C. 30 A.D. 

Atil Temple 122 151 A.D. 

Kanawat Temple of Zeus 123 II Cent. A.D. 

Temple of Helios? 124 " " 

Is-Sanamen Tychaion 125 191 A.D. 

Damascus Propylaea 126 Antonine 

Djerash Propylaea 127 150 A.D. 

Amman Propylaea 128 Antonine 


We turn now to the first of the three monuments of North- 
ern Central Syria that we shall consider. The architectural 
history of the monuments of classic style in this section of the 
country is summed up by Mr. Butler. 129 

The first dated monument leaving Palmyra for special at- 
tention is at Sermeda, on the north-east slope of the Djebel 
Halakah, between Antioch and Aleppo. 

Bicoluwmar Monument. Excavations at Telloh and Niffer 
seem to point to an Eastern origin for the erection of individual 
columns, and in Solomon's temple occurs an early instance of 
twin columns with symbolic meaning. 131 In Greece we have 
Pausanias as authority for their early use in marking graves, 132 
but the use of two columns above a tomb seems to have arisen 
in Syria. In the north several pairs occur at Sesonk 133 while 
at Kara Kush they stand singly, in pairs, or grouped by 
threes. 134 


The date of the pair at Sermeda is between 132 and 141 
A.D. 135 "The mouldings of the basement, the details of the 
Corinthian capitals, are pure in style and refined in execu- 
tion." 136 Judging by the drawing of M. de Vogue and the 
photograph of Mr. Butler, the columns, which are unfluted 137 
are about eight and one half diameters high, and the capitals 
one. The section of entablature joining the shafts at about two 
thirds of their height, is perhaps an adaptation to twin columns 
of the console brackets on the shafts of colonnades and temples, 
as at Palmyra and elsewhere. 


Temple 138 151 A.D. At Atil, on the west slope of the Djebel 
Hauran, are two temples. For our material we shall consider 
only the western one which is dated. 139 It is a monument of 
special interest not only because of the arched entablature, 
but also because the podium has arches within that support 
the cella floor. 

This use of arches is not surprising considering the extended 
use of the arch that we have noticed in discussing the Temple 
of Dushara at Si. 140 Among the examples there cited, it will 
be remembered, was an arched passage in the podium of the 
Propylaea of Samothrace, III Cent. B.C. 141 Just such an arched 
construction as this at Atil occurs in the podium of the Temple 
of Helios? at Kanawat, 142 in the Temple of Artemis at 
Dj crash 143 whose foundations are vaulted 144 and in the Temple 
of Zeus at Aizanoi. 145 

The Corinthian order of the columns is pure. The capitals 
but very slightly exceed one diameter in height, and the form 
of the leaves is Greek. 146 A console projected from each col- 
umn and anta at about one half the height. These, doubtless, 
were to carry statues, after the Syrian fashion as at Palmyra. 147 

The architrave was decorated with the Greek fret and 
rosettes, which were very popular in Syria. No cornice frag- 
ments have been found, but over the central intercolumniation, 
the architrave, and the frieze with its ornament of leaf scrolls 
in relief, were arched. 148 The two pairs of panels, flanking the 
door, were decorated with rinceaux, the inner with the grape 
vine 149 and the outer with acanthus. Evidently the Oriental 
ornament, so common in the earlier monuments, had not wholly 
disappeared. Between these panels are quarter columns, where 
the wall is slightly broken out. These are fluted, the only in- 


stance of this that we shall find in the Hauran except the 
columns decorating the gateway of the outermost court at Si. 

Further Oriental treatment comes in the decoration of the 
niches that stand between the panels and the outer pilasters. 150 
The maeander and rosettes that ornament the panels of the 
lower niches are sui generis. The upper niches end in conches 
below the jambs which are carried over in an arch, and deco- 
rated with a most individual treatment of the guilloche. 

The niches are in pairs, one above the other. The upper of 
these terminate in a conch, framed by the arching of the 
jambs. The conch, as Strzygowski has observed 151 is thoroughly 
Eastern and a natural step in the evolution of the niche as wall 
decoration which first appears translated from brick into stone 
in the temples and nymphaea of Syria and Asia Minor. 152 Fur- 
thermore the placing of the conch with lines radiating upwards, 
as here and in all other examples we shall quote, is Eastern, as 
has been pointed out by Wiegand. 153 

So far as we can judge this is the earliest example in Syrian 
architecture of the conch. It represents a development in the 
use of the niche parallel to the arching of the entablature. This 
is an evidence of growth in the Hellenistic architecture in the 
East that was continuous and whose continuity was maintained 
by fresh infusions from the Orient. 


Tomb of Eisidotos. Another bicolumnar monument, dated 
152 A.D., 154 is our second monument from Northern Central 
Syria. This is of even greater severity than that at Sermeda. 
The simple mouldings that form the caps of the quadrangular 
shafts, and the profile of the connecting entablature, are most 
un-Roman. The pointed niches on the faces of the shafts re- 
call the deeper ones on the column to Tiberius Claudius Sosan- 
dros at Bshindelaya. 155 


Temple. The tetrastyle, prostyle temple, called Burdj 
Bakirha, on the north slope of the Djebel Barisha in Northern 
Central Syria, dates from 161 A.D., 156 and is one of the very 
few monuments to show any Roman influence. Yet this in- 
fluence is neither strong nor consistent, as study of the details 
will prove. 


In the plan 157 the depth of the pronaos is hardly Greek, yet 
a Roman temple would have one or more columns "on the re- 
turn/' 158 Furthermore there is no podium. In the elevation 
the pedestals beneath the column bases and the proportions of 
the pediment, about 1:4.31, seem very Roman; yet the wide 
spacing of the pilasters on the sides and rear is not. In the 
Maison Carree at Nimes, engaged columns, performing the 
same function, are much more closely spaced; so too in the 
temple of Fortuna Virilis, so Hellenistic in its architecture, 
which would tend to show that this exceptionally wide spacing 
is not only not Roman but also not Greek. Actually the 
pilasters are placed so as to emphasize on the exterior the 
presence of an "adyton" within the cella. The distance from 
the pilaster, thus marking the interior division, to either end of 
the cella wall is such that it is impossible that there was once a 
series of pilasters evenly spaced. 

Notice has been called to the fact that an adyton is usually 
to be found in a Syrian temple. 159 The principal examples are 
in the 

Temple at Burdj Bakirha 161 A.D. 160 

Temple of Zeus at Kanawat Antonine 161 
So-called Jupiter T., Baalbec Antonine 162 

Temple of Artemis at Djerash Antonine 163 
Tychaion at Is-Sanamen 191 A.D. 16 * 

Although at an early period in Greek architecture such a 
"locus templi secretior ad quern nulli est aditus nisi sacerdoti" 165 
was not unusual 166 it soon disappeared and is not found in the 
later periods or at Rome. Its origin has been referred to an 
Oriental source 167 and its occurrence would seem to depend 
upon the presence of certain strong Oriental influence. If so, 
it is less surprising to find it lacking in the Hellenistic work in 
Asia Minor, which is probably the cause of its absence in the 
earlier Hellenistic buildings in Syria. It may be that its sud- 
den appearance in Syria was due to some sudden change in 
cult. 168 

The example at Burdj Bakirha is very simple. A wall, 
pierced by a doorway, shuts off a part of the cella. But it has 
not been possible to excavate sufficiently to determine whether 
there were not side chambers also, forming a three fold division 
of the cella, as in all but one of the later examples. At Djerash, 
in the Temple of Artemis the adyton is an extremely small 


compartment, between two stairways, and separated from the 
cella by an arch springing from the ends of the stair walls. 169 
In the Temple of Zeus at Kanawat 170 the construction is very 
similar. However in this case the chambers which flank the 
adyton do not seem to have contained stairs. They give rather 
the effect of the plan of the Pretorium at Musmiyeh, 171 and of 
the Tychaion at Is-Sanamen 172 and the division of the "nave" 
of the cella by two rows of columns and the construction of the 
roofing, as restored by Mr. Butler, increase the similarity to the 
Syrian Christian basilica plan. The most developed type is in 
the so-called Jupiter Temple at Baalbec. 173 Here the side 
chambers are separated from the adyton only by columns and 
the whole sanctuary is raised seven steps above the rest of the 
cella. As the foundations of the cella are vaulted a "crypt" is 
thus formed. 

Mr. Butler has called attention to the similarity between such 
a plan, in the Tychaion at Is-Sanamen, and that of many Chris- 
tian churches in Syria. 174 Sufficient evidence is available to 
develop this theory of the origin of the plan of the Syrian 
Christian basilica, but that lies beyond the field of this discus- 
sion and is in process of publication elsewhere. 

Returning to the discussion of the Temple at Burdj Bakirha, 
the capitals, according to Mr. Butler, are a little taller than the 
Roman type. 175 Yet judging from his restoration they but 
slightly exceed the lower diameter in height. 

The details of decoration, or their absence, however, are 
certainly Greek, not only from their purity and simplicity, but 
also from the restraint that the builders showed. There is not 
a trace of that profusion of elaborate ornamentation that char- 
acterizes Roman work of the same period, as for example, the 
highly decorated frieze of the Temple of Antoninus and 
Faustina. 176 

The capitals of the columns which are unfluted, 177 exhibit a 
very elegant treatment of the Corinthian order. 178 Those of 
the pilasters, consisting of a row of four stiff acanthus leaves, 
curling slightly over beneath an egg and dart echinus moulding, 
are very beautiful, and of a type found nowhere in Rome. A 
similar use of an egg and dart echinus, placed above a palmette 
on a cymation, is found on the capitals of the interior columns 
from the altar hall of the precinct of Artemis at Magnesia. 179 

The substitution for the frieze of a narrow flat band is in 
keeping with the restraint shown in the whole monument. The 


only sculptured decoration of the entablature, apart from the 
dentils, is a series of bucrania and garlands, relieved on a deep 
cyma recta that replaces the corona. As bucrania are found as 
early as the III Cent. B.C. 180 on both the Arsinoeion 181 and 
Ptolemaion 182 at Samothrace, and then a more developed form 
with the skulls joined by garlands on the frieze of the temenos 
of Artemis at Magnesia 183 and on the portico of Athena Polias 
at Pergamon 184 the origin of this motif must be put in the 
Hellenistic East, not at Rome. 185 

In the second of the three courses of the western pediment an 
eagle appears in high relief, a figure found with much attend- 
ant decoration on the soffit of the cella door of the Bel Temple 
at Palmyra. 


Temple. 18 * At Mushennef in the Hauran, on the other side 
of the great plateau from Atil, is a temple whose remains re- 
semble, in many ways, that at the latter place. It is assigned to 
the period of the Antonines by Mr. Butler 187 from an inscrip- 
tion found nearby, 188 and from a comparison with the temple 
at Atil. There seems to have been a peribolos as early as 41 
A.D. 138 . 

The plan, 189 distyle in antis, is very simple. The temple is 
raised upon a podium, lower than that at Atil, projecting far- 
ther beyond the cella walls, and with a more elaborate cap 
moulding. At the four corners of the cella are pilasters, as at 
Burdj Bakirha, with Corinthian caps, the leaves 190 showing 
the "V" section of Greek workmanship. The base mould of 
the antae is Attic. The upper torus is carved with bay leaves, 
the scotia with deep perpendicular grooves, and the lower 
torus with a guilloche. Both the bay leaf 191 and the guilloche 192 
recall some of the most beautiful of earlier examples. The 
column bases are Attic, undecorated, and the shafts unfluted. 193 
The capitals, unlike the antae caps, are of the type called com- 
posite. For a better understanding of this type it will be well 
to look a little more closely than has been done into its origin 
and development. The skeleton of the theory has already been 
formed in a History of Architecture. 194 To this may now be 
added more examples and from it further conclusions may be 

At Naukratis in the Temple of Apollo, a fragment of an- 
themion necking was found 195 which is nothing else than a pro- 


totype of the developed capital of the Erectheion. 196 Some one, 
feeling that the regular Ionic capital was not high enough to 
give a sufficiently dignified conclusion to the shaft, added the 
ornamental necking. A stiff Roman translation of this type 
is now in the Lateran Museum. 197 The next natural step in 
development would be a form in which the necking would 
cease to exist as such, and would become an integral part of the 
capital. An example of this is the little known "anthemion- 
composite" capital of the theatre at Laodicea. 198 Here all the 
forms of the Ionic capital are retained, and that joining of the 
volutes by a horizontal fillet which is a characteristic of the 
"Hermogenes" capital, arising in Asia Minor 199 and carried 
from there to Rome. 200 The necking, which is now part of the 
capital above a fully developed astragal, is generally like that 
of the Erectheion, 201 but simpler in execution. Instead of con- 
tinuous scrolls from which the palmette grows, these are 
acanthus calices, so that we naturally expect the next step in 
the development to be the entire replacing of anthemion by 
acanthus, as in the capitals of the columns in antis of the Zeus 
Temple at Aizanoi. 202 It is fortunate that this temple can be 
dated, as of the time of Hadrian, 203 for a comparison of the 
forms of the entablature with those of the Laodicea theatre 
will clearly show that the theatre is the earlier. 204 In every way 
its forms are more simple and more severe. The fasciae of the 
architrave are not edged with the bead and reel, nor is the 
arcliitrave's crowning member decorated with the anthemion. 
The temple has modillions, the theatre has not ; and the cyma- 
tion of the theatre has a much simpler ornament. The decora- 
tion of the fillet, joining the volutes of the temple capitals, is 
very similar to that on the capitals of the Ptolemaion of Samo- 
thrace, III Cent. B.C. 205 That this Aizanoi example is one of 
the earliest instances of the use of the acanthus composite 
capital is supported by the fact that in the theatre at the same 
place, whose forms are later than those of the temple, the 
capital has rinceaux of acanthus between the echinus and the 
astragal. 206 Furthermore, in the Temple at Aizanoi the com- 
posite capitals are used in company with the Ionic. The type 
then was not yet fixed as a form, but it .must have been popular 
enough to develop rapidly. For, at Myra, the theatre 207 which 
was restored in 155-156 A.D. 208 has capitals with two rows of 
acanthus leaves. The feeling that this form was akin to the 
Corinthian capital is manifested by the use of an acanthus leaf 


as "flos" on the abacus. Corinthian too are the tendrils that 
turn inward just below the echinus, as the inner volutes of the 
Corinthian capital. This developed form, with a double row 
of acanthus leaves, an acanthus as "flos," and returning central 
tendrils, is the predominant type found at Rome. However, 
in the Roman examples, in the earliest, on the Arch of Titus 209 
and in all others, the fillet joining the volutes is always raised 
upon the cavetto of the abacus, obscuring that member, and 
reducing its architectural significance, or else it disappears al- 
together. 210 Again, in the capitals of the Titus Arch, the Arch 
of Septimius Severus, 211 the Baths of Caracalla 212 and of Dio- 
cletian, 213 a carved leaf decoration extends both ways from the 
"flos" along the fillet connecting the volutes, and fills the canalis 
of the latter. Neither of these characteristics ever occurs in 
the Asia Minor examples, where the purity and proper function 
of the elements of the Ionic capital are maintained. Now the 
significance of this is that at Laodicea, Aizanoi and Myra occur 
stages in the development of the composite form that are pe- 
culiar to the East, and which we shall find later, in Syria, at 
Dmer. 214 At Mushennef we find a distinct type, equally for- 
eign to that of the West at this time. Here the form shows a 
stronger feeling of kinship to the Corinthian. For the volutes 
are undoubtedly those of the Corinthian order, rising at the 
corners of the bell. The capital is composite only because the 
egg and dart has been added above the second row of acanthus. 
Not unexpected, but quite natural is this in a country where 
the preponderance of the Corinthian is so overwhelming as to 
be practically exclusive. And in this instance the composite is 
a timid variant at best, for the pilaster caps are of the regular 
Greek Corinthian form. 

The architrave of the temple, decorated with maeander and 
rosettes, shows that the revival of classic art at this time was 
not complete. Yet the frieze shows an excellent classic design, 
a scroll of slender acanthus and delicate flowers, capped by a 
heavy egg and dart. 


It is unfortunate that there is no direct evidence for the dat- 
ing of the two temples at Kanawat in the Hauran. Inscriptions 
that have been found there from the reigns of Hadrian, 215 
Marcus Aurelius/ 16 and Commodus, 217 indicate that the tem- 
ples belong about the end of the II Century. Since at this 


period there was no such marked architectural development as 
there was in the earlier periods in the Hauran, it is possible to 
give them only a very approximate date. 218 

Temple of Zeus, 219 The plan of the cella shows two rows of 
interior columns and a chamber in each of the corners. Those 
at the rear flank the adyton, separated from the rest of the 
cella by an arch, an arrangement very similar to that in the 
Artemis Temple at Dj crash. 220 The niches in the chamber 
walls flanking the adyton arch, and the two, one above the 
other, in each of the anta walls, are all rectangular and, as the 
doorway, flanked by mouldings, without any ornamentation. 
The revised plan shows the cella triply divided by rows of 
columns. The significance of this in conjunction with the 
adyton has already been noted. 221 

The Attic column bases, above low panelled plinths, are 
carved with guilloche and bay leaf, as in the second Temple of 
Helios ?, and at Mushennef , 222 The shafts of both temples show 
marked entasis ; they are, of course, unfluted, as everywhere in 
the Hauran. The capitals 223 have a height of but 1.03 lower 
diameters. The width of the central intercolumniation, about 
5 meters, seems to indicate an arched entablature. This is up- 
held by a fragment of architrave, still in situ, with the bands 
of the face carried round the end. 

Temple of Helios? 224 The plan shows seven columns in the 
rear, as in the peripteral temple at Suweda. 225 The interior of 
the podium was built up with arches covered by slabs. 226 The 
treatment of the podium wall, broken out into shallow pilasters 
below the columns, recalls that on the North and Middle Tem- 
ples in the Forum Holitorium at Rome. This treatment Del- 
brueck refers to Hellenistic influence from Asia Minor. 227 

The columns stand upon pedestals that are only paralleled by 
those beneath the two central columns at the entrance of the 
so-called Diocletian Basilica at Palmyra. 228 Behind the ruins 
are fragments of a large conch which may have covered an apse 
at the end of the cella. 


Temple f 229 A study of the architecture of Syria, especially 
from the fourth century on, shows a development to forms 
most strikingly "Romanesque." The Temple? at Dmer in the 
Hauran, dated 245 A.D. by an inscription of Philip the Arab, 230 


shows the beginning of this evolution, still under the influence 
of the Hellenistic style. Dmer, on the site of ancient Admedera, 
lies to the east of Damascus. The building under discussion 
has been fully published by Mr. Butler. 

The plan, 231 so far as Syria is concerned, is unique. The 
recessed portal, flanked by "tower-like chambers," suggests the 
portal of the Temple of Baal Samin at Si. 232 The Syrian Hel- 
lenistic forms are more or less retained in the pilasters, the 
entablature, the gable front, and the portal arch. 

The capitals of the pilasters are of the composite order. A 
careful examination of the photograph 233 from which the illus- 
tration on page 402 of Mr. Butler's work was made, shows that 
they follow the Asia Minor-Hellenistic form, 234 although the 
leaves are uncut. The abacus is left free without any intru- 
sion of the fillet that joins the volutes. The latter are of the 
Ionic form as found in the Aizanoi type, and not the Corin- 
thian volutes as found at Mushennef . 

The portal arch is heavier than any that we have seen, and its 
mouldings are returned across the capitals of the piers, as in 
the later churches. 235 The hood moulding above the profiled 
archivolt and the cornices show the earliest instances of con- 
soles in the Hauran. It is interesting to note that, according to 
Delbrueck, the console cornice, as used at Rome, probably goes 
back to a Syrian origin. 236 Above the narrow pulvinated frieze 
is a plain band that might have been carved with dentils, which 
are found on the entablature within the cella. The whole en- 
tablature is broken out "en ressaut" above each pilaster ; earlier 
instances of this in Syria are the Propylaea at Dj crash 237 and 
at Amman, 237 both Antonine, and the central triumphal arch at 
Bosra. 238 The pilasters within the cella have caps "of good 
Corinthian style." 239 Unfortunately they are not illustrated in 
the publication. The roofing, according to Mr. Butler, seems to 
have been of wood. 239 

To sum up then: in this monument, dated 200 years after 
Herod Agrippa I became the Roman representative in the 
Hauran, there are still strong indications of the Hellenistic 
architecture that Syria held throughout her length and breadth. 
Of Roman influence, as in plan, or in florid decoration that 
prevailed at this time, 240 there are no traces, except possibly 
the treatment of the entablature "en ressaut." 241 On the other 
hand, there are even more than the beginnings of the new step 
in architectural development that was to reach fullness in the 


next three centuries. At the time when the Hellenistic influ- 
ence finally waned, when, if ever, we might expect the influ- 
ence of Rome, it is not the Imperial architecture of Italy that 
appears in this distant province, but an independent native de- 
velopment, growing out of the foundations that were laid in 
the continuous survival of Hellenistic forms, decoration, and 
construction. And finally, there was such power in the artistic 
spirit that it was able to anticipate the Occident, in its con- 
structions, by nearly half a century. 


Note. In treating the monuments of Palmyra it has been 
necessary to go into detail even more than in the case of the 
rest of Syria. In spite of the magnificence of the ruins there 
is but one publication, that of Wood. While his plates, espe- 
cially with his restorations, are not always trustworthy, and 
the cross-references leave much to be desired, only the highest 
praise can be given to so magnificent a work, accomplished 
under such difficulties and long before archaeology as a science 
was born. Of the work of E. Berthone in Palmyra during the 
summer of 1895 only a preliminary report has been published, 
by E. Guillaume in the Revue des Deux Mondes, CXLII, 1897, 
and a report on the inscriptions by Chabot in the Journal 
Asiatique, XII (I), 1898. Reference will also be made to the 
skeleton report of the German Expedition excavating at 

It will be noticed that the spelling "Bel" has been retained 
in the great temple. This has been done both out of deference 
to Wood and also to avoid confusion with the eastern and 
smaller temple of Baal or Baal Samin. 


The Temple of Bel The oldest parts of the temple 242 are 
the cella walls that run north and south, and the peristyle. The 
plan of the cella must have been originally of Greek form. Its 
proportions are classic, as those of the peristyle, with eight 
columns at front and back, and fifteen on the sides. The 
present form of the cella, with a side entrance and windows in 
the side walls, 243 and the walling up of pronaos and epinaos, is 
due to an alteration. 244 Had the intention been, at the time 
the peristyle was built, to provide a side entrance, the columns 


would not have been so disposed that one occurred directly 
opposite the middle of the cella wall. As it was, when the 
change was made, one column had to be removed from the flank 
to provide an entrance which was necessarily "off center." 
That this was felt to be a necessity, and was not a choice, is 
clearly shown by the position of the windows in the eastern 
cella wall. Unhampered by the necessary position of an en- 
trance, they are spaced symmetrically. It may be noted here 
that the exedrae at either end of the cella, marked A and B in 
the plan, were not a part of the original plan, and, when intro- 
duced, did not serve as adyta as Puchstein has asserted. 245 An 
examination of the photograph of the American Archaeological 
Expedition 246 will show this, for the central compartment is 
only a vestibule, with side chambers opening out of it. Further 
examination will show the patched and hasty character of the 
construction. At the sides of the doors the decoration above the 
pediments of the slender niches is not the same, and above them 
are placed massive pilaster bases, probably taken from the old 
west wall of the peribolos when it was rebuilt in 175 A.D? 24T 
or else, and this is more probable, during the repairs after the 
sack by Aurelian in 273. The florid ornamentation of the ceil- 
ings of the vestibules also points to a late date for their con- 
struction. 248 

We must now leave the temple for a moment and turn to the 
peribolos, where we have our first definite evidence for date. 

The Peribolos. The epigraphical evidence for the dating of 
the peribolos is as follows. For convenience reference will be 
made to the inscriptions by number, and they are arranged in 
chronological order. Those called bilingual have both Greek 
and Palmyrene text. 
No. I 10 A.D=32i Seleucid Era. Bilingual, found, with 

No. 2 on a stone, in the interior of the temenos, by 

Prince Abamelek Lazarew. Published by M. de 

Vogue. 249 The purpose of the stone is not clear. Dr. 

Littmann has suggested 250 that it was placed under a 

niche in the temple wall. 
No. 2 17 A.D.=328 Sel. Bilingual, on same stone as 

above. 251 
No. 3 21 A.D.=333 Sel. Palmyrene. In situ on column 

bracket of temenos portico, 252 published by Euting. 253 
No. 4 28/29 A.D.=340 Sel. Palmyrene. In situ on bracket 

of column number four from north end of eastern 

portico. Discovered, together with No. 5, by Litt- 
mann, and published in AAES IV. 254 

No. 5 70/71 A.D.=382 Sel. 255 Bilingual. 256 In situ on 
bracket of column number three from north end of 
eastern portico, and second to the south from No. 3. 
No. 6 1 08 A.D. /| 20 Sel. 257 Bilingual. In situ on bracket of 
column number ten from west end of southern portico. 
No. 7 118 A.D. ^29 Sel. Palmyrene. 258 In situ on bracket 
of column number twenty one from west end of 
southern portico. 
No. 8 127 A.D. 439 Sel. Bilingual. 259 In situ on bracket 

of column in southern portico. 

No. 9 142 A.D. 453 Sel. Greek. In situ on bracket of col- 
umn in portico, discovered by Wood. 260 
No. 10 167/168 A.D. 479 Sel. Greek. In situ on bracket 

of column in portico, discovered by Wood. 261 
No. II 175 A.D. /\S6 Sel. Bilingual. "In middle of south- 
ern side wall of propylaea." 262 

Note A. Puchstein also mentions an inscription of 150 
A.D. 263 

Note B. Littmann has mentioned the inscriptions No. I 
and No. 2 of de Vogue 264 as belonging to the temple. 265 This 
is incorrect. The description given by de Vogue, "sur une 
grande colonne isolee au nord du temple du Soleil" and "sur 
une grande colonne renversee, qui faisait pendante a la prece- 
dente, au sud-ouest du temple," do not indicate that these 
columns were in the temenos. On the contrary they stood at 
some distance, as is proved by the fact that the Greek text of 
No. 2 is identical with that of Wood, op. cit., Marmor. Palm. 
XXI, which he found on the isolated column, marked 30 in the 
plan, Tab. II, at a distance of over a quarter mile from the 
peribolos. The two columns that bore the inscriptions in 
question were those marked 28 and 30, respectively, in the 
same plan, and, if Wood's plan is trustworthy, were equidis- 
tant from the temple itself. 

Note has been suggested by Mr. H. C. Butler that 
there may be reason to believe that Wood was wrong, that de 
Vogue followed him, and that Littmann is correct. It is un- 
fortunately impossible to verify this at present. 

The Peribolos, con. 266 The idea of a walled peribolos goes 
back to an early Egyptian origin. 267 Later on in Greece there 
are various instances of enclosures of sacred sites, 268 but they 


contain more than one shrine. Such are the "altis" at Olym- 
pia 269 and the peribolos of the Olympieion at Athens. 270 
. In the Hellenistic East, however, a single temple is fre- 
quently surrounded by a walled peribolos. This is the case 
with the Temple of Baal Samin at Si, 271 the Temple of Jupiter 
at Aizanoi, 272 the Artemis Temple at Dj crash 273 and the Tem- 
ple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias. 274 At Amman there are 
remains of a great peribolos upon the acropolis, 275 but the 
building within is completely ruined. Holtzinger 276 adds the 
"'sun temple" at Baalbec, a statement not confirmed by the re- 
port of the German Expedition 277 unless he considers the en- 
closed court in front of the temple a peribolos. He lists also a 
temple at Djemila in Algiers. 278 

In the West, on the other hand, instances are rare. At 
Pompeii, the Temple of Apollo with its peribolos 279 dates from 
the Tufa period 280 of "untrammeled Hellenistic influence." 281 
At Rome there are but two examples of a walled peribolos. 
That of the Portico of the Argonauts 282 about the Temple of 
Neptune, was built in 25 B.C. 283 At the time of the Saturnalia 
it served as a bazaar. 284 This and the testimony of ancient 
writers 285 concerning the other example, the Portico of the 
Danaids 286 about the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine, finished 
in 26 B.C., 287 substantiate Lanciani's observation as to their 
mundane character. 288 

It is necessary to add the examples of the Iseum et Sera- 
peum, 289 in direct imitation of Egypt, and Aurelian's Temple 
of the Sun 290 with its Syrian prototypes. All other instances 
of temple enclosures in Rome are simply open colonnades with- 
out walls, 291 another case of Rome's altered treatment of an 
idea borrowed from the East. It is well worth noting that the 
earliest one of these, that about the temples of Jupiter Stator 
and of Juno Regina, was built by a Greek architect, Hermo- 
dorus of S alarms, in 149 B.C. 292 

The Peribolos Wall. The exterior of the peribolos wall 293 
was broken by pilasters, evenly spaced and carrying a complete 
entablature. Between each of these, on the north, south, and 
east, were windows, crowned by a gable. 294 The western front 
was built much higher and the spaces between the pilasters 
were left quite plain. 295 This construction was continued on 
the north and south for about seventy feet. 296 On the inter- 
ior of the peribolos the west side has a single colonnade. On 
the other three sides the portico had a double row of columns. 


The porch of the entrance at the west had been destroyed 
before Wood made his drawings. 297 Of his fourth plate, then, 
we may consider only the wall in its entirety, and its 

The interior of the wall on the north, south, and east is 
precisely like the exterior. 298 That of the western wall, how- 
ever, and of its continuations on the north and south, has a 
double row of niches. 299 

The Peribolos Colonnades. It is unfortunate that we have 
no detailed illustration of the order of the columns on the 
north, south, and east. Nor can we judge by the analogy of 
the pilasters on the outside of the wall which was undoubtedly 
built at the same time. For, here again, our illustrations fail 
us, except on a very small scale. 300 Still we can judge from 
this of the severity of the decoration which is carried out in the 
windows, of trapezoidal form, crowned by gables with raking 
cornices. 301 In striking contrast to these are the decorations of 
the entrance in the west wall, a double row of niches and doors, 
some with profiled archivolts, conches, 302 and elaborately carved 
mouldings, 303 an essentially Eastern scheme. 304 The frieze of 
the north, south and east walls, both inside and out, seems to 
have been undecorated. 305 While this was copied on the ex- 
terior of the new west front, 306 on the interior there was an 
entablature very characteristic of the middle of the second 
century. 307 

Puchstein, on the evidence of the inscriptions, that we have 
numbered 6, 8 and 9, and the one mentioned in Note A, has 
admitted that "jedenfalls unter Hadrian schon ein Teil des 
Peribolos fertig war." 308 We have besides, inscriptions of 21 
A.D., 309 28/29 A.D., 310 and 70/71 A.D. 311 These are on con- 
soles that could not have been fastened to the shafts, after use 
in another location, for each is part of the column drum, or 
rather, a projection from the drum itself, necessarily a part of 
the colonnade at the time of erection. From time to time, then, 
as occasion offered, inscriptions were cut and statues set up, 
as we shall see in the case of the street colonnades. 

The Peribolos, then, must have been erected not later than 
the beginning of our era, 312 and most probably at the time 
when the change in the temple cella was made and a door 
placed between two columns of the peristyle. For, it cer- 
tainly could not have been built very long before the change in 
the temple was made so as to have an entrance opposite to the 


gate in the western side of the court. This is entirely sup- 
ported by an examination of the details of the temple altera- 
tions, particularly in the case of the mouldings of the door that 
was set in the middle of the peristyle. The jambs, beginning on 
the inside, are decorated with three fasciae, each bordered by 
a fillet. The inner fascia is carved with a continuous laurel or 
olive leaf ornament, the next with a grape vine, 313 a large leaf 
alternating with a huge bunch of grapes. The third has rin- 
ceaux of a plant not easily identified. Outside of these comes 
first a cyma recta with the leaf and dart, then an egg and dart 
on an ovolo, and finally an anthemion on a cavetto. 314 

Now such a combination of Greek and Oriental motifs is 
characteristic of only one architectural period in Syria, the 
period in which were built the temple at Suweda 315 and those 
of Baal Samin 316 and Dushara at Si. 317 These are examples 
from the Hauran, it is true, but it must not be forgotten that 
after 85 B.C., when the Nabataeans defeated Antiochus XII, 
they took possession of Damascus and Coele- Syria. 318 Now 
Palmyra is equally distant from Antioch and the Hauran ; so it 
is not surprising to find traces of this southern influence at 
this time in the midst of all that the city must have drawn from 
the Syrian capital. 

The great door of the temple enclosure at Si, 319 almost purely 
Oriental in its ornament, has just such naturalistic forms as this 
peristyle door of the Temple of Bel. On the archivolt above 
the door occurs much the same grape vine motif, and we find 
this again on the inner jamb of the door of the Temple of Baal 
Samin at Si. 320 All this simply confirms our hypothesis that 
the alterations of the Bel Temple cella took place at the same 
time as the building of the peribolos, that is, about the begin- 
ning of the first century A.D. 

The Temple Cella and Peristyle. Still older than the oldest 
parts of the peribolos are the cella and peristyle of the tem- 
ple. 321 The capitals have unfortunately long since lost their 
decoration. For, as the holes in the bells show, this was of 
metal, fastened to an inverted, truncated, cone shaped core. 
Perhaps this same use of metal occured in the interior of the 
temple cella at Dj crash, called Bet et-Tai. 322 The decoration 
of the entablature is severe for the Hellenistic period. The 
ornament of the frieze is a succession of garlands held by 
winged figures. 323 The proportions of the entablature are very 
nearly those of the Greek Temple of Vesta at Tivoli, together 


with which they are given below, in comparison with those of 
the Temple of Vespasian at Rome. 

Bel T. Vesta T. Vespasian T. 

Capital height 1.12 i.oo 1.23 

Architrave height 0.5 0.53 0.64 

Field of frieze 0.5 0.66 0.7 

Cornice height 0.62 0.6 0.8 

Entablature 1.7 1.7 2.2 

The common unit is the lower diameter. 

The frieze about the cella was undecorated, and convex in 
profile, 324 as was also the case in the Temple at Srir of 116 
A.D. 325 Friezes with curved profiles occur in Greece as early 
as the fourth century in the Tholos 326 and in the Theatre 327 
at Epidauros. A later example is that from the Theatre at 
Aizanoi. 328 In Rome, however, instances are rare, 329 the ear- 
liest being the pulvinated friezes of the Portico of the Argo- 
nauts 330 and of the Temple of Neptune, 331 both dating probably 
from the restoration under Hadrian. 332 

The Western Peribolos Wall and Entrance. The newest part 
of all the temple precinct, with the exception of the exedrae in 
the cella, is the western peribolos wall. We have already men- 
tioned as No. n, the inscription of 175 A.D. from the western 
wall. Certainly the forms and ornaments of the entrance are 
later than any of those we have discussed, and are very similar 
to others that we have seen belonging to the latter half of the 
second century. 

The plan 333 shows a central intercolumniation of 13' 4". It 
would have been impossible to span this with anything but an 
arch, as has already been suggested. 334 This is just what might 
be expected, considering the other examples of arched entab- 
lature in Syria. 335 Yet the use of the arch, known in Palmyra 
at least as early as the beginning of the second century, 336 did 
not find as ready acceptance and as free use as in the Hauran. 
The niches at Atil showed a round head with a conch, 337 and 
at Musmiyeh a full entablature was carried above the conch ; 338 
but in the niches of Palmyra a horizontal entablature is carried 
either above or below the archivolt. 339 

We have unfortunately no figures for the lower diameter of 
the shafts in the colonnade, and lack of photographs on any- 
thing like the necessary scale prevents such a discussion of the 
Corinthian capitals as Wiegand has given to those from Baal- 
bee. 340 On the other hand certain marked distinctions between 


the Greek and Roman forms of the Corinthian are well known, 
and will suffice to show that the capitals of the western peri- 
bolos colonnade approach the Greek much more closely than 
the Roman. The bell of the capital is not completely masked by 
the volutes and leaves, and the second row of leaves is not 
twice as high as the first. 341 But a complete masking, with the 
upper row of leaves double the height of the lower, is charac- 
teristic of the Roman form, as shown in the examples from 
the temples of Mars Ultor, 342 Vespasian, 343 and Castor. 344 In- 
deed Wood's drawing makes the capitals compare not unfav- 
orably with those from the Olympieion at Athens. 345 The flat 
section of the leaves shown in his plate must not be considered. 
In the case of the Jupiter Temple at Baalbec, 346 in the cella 
capitals, he shows a similarly flat section which the photographic 
evidence of Puchstein 347 contradicts. Furthermore, Berthone 
says the acanthus was of the Greek type and not like that at 
Baalbec. 348 It is interesting to recall, in this connection, 
Rivoira's statement about Corinthian capitals in the East, as- 
suming them to be, of course, examples of Roman workman- 
ship. He says : "nei tempi anzidetti 128 to 193 i migliori 
capitelli vogliono esser cercati nella Siria." 349 On the other 
hand Delbrueck has said that we must reckon with the possi- 
bility that the Corinthian order was Syrian. 350 

The frieze above the colonnade has a flat profile. 351 That 
on the peribolos wall is convex, 352 and is ornamented with 
acanthus rinceaux. Yet, even if erected in 175, the acanthus 
does not occur with stalk completely covered by leaves, as at 
Rome in the Trajan Forum, 353 and later in the "Frontispiece of 
Nero." 354 Again, in the palmettes of the sima, we find the 
distinction from purely Roman types. They have not the 
leaves sharply pointed at the ends that the architecture of 
Rome shows, 355 as, for example, in the Trajan Forum 356 and 
the Agrippa Baths, 357 but leaves with their ends rolled over 
in a flat, snail-like form. This is the universal form at 
Palmyra, and of very great frequency. 358 

Summary. We have, then, four periods of architectural 
activity on the site of the Bel Temple. 
I. Not later than end of first century, B.C. 

Temple cella and peristyle. 
II. Not later than 21 A.D. 

Rearrangement of cella ; addition of door in peristyle 

and building of peribolos. 

III. 175 A.D. 

Rebuilding of west wall of peribolos. To this, or 
perhaps to a fourth period under Aurelian, belong the 
exedrae in the temple cella. The latter are the only 
remains that can be assigned to this last period. 
Aurelian's letter to Bassus expressly states that he 
desired "templum ad earn formam quae fuit, 
reddi" 359 Such repairs as he made then must have 
consisted chiefly in setting up what had been thrown 
down in the sack of the city. 


In the Wadi il-Kebur, to the south-west of the city, are the 
remains of many tombs. 360 Two of these have been sufficiently 
preserved to warrant their publication ; that of lamlichus by de 
Vogue, and that of Elabelos by Wood. 

Tomb of lamlichus 361 83 A.D. The date is given by a 
bilingual inscription. 362 Both this and the following tomb are 
in the form of a square or rectagular tower. 363 The ornamental 
details show a strong classic influence. The pilasters between 
the cubicula of the first storey are Corinthian, as are those of 
the upper niche of the f agaric. The door with moulded jambs, 
crowned by a pediment carried on consoles, is Greek. De Vogue 
also mentions in his text "sculptured friezes, and coffered ceil- 
ings with heads in relief," probably very similar to the carving 
of the soffit of the side door in the west wall of the peribolos, 364 
and to the ceilings 365 in the fully classic sepulchre marked 'W 
in Wood's plan. 366 For all such later examples the ceilings of 
the tomb would be prototypes. 

Tomb of Elabelos 367 103 A.D. This tomb, dated 368 twenty 
years later than that of lamlichus, shows a more severe f agade, 
but with a beautifully profiled archivolt spanning the upper 
niche. The interior has beautifully channeled Corinthian pi- 
lasters, crowned by a severe entablature, on the sides ; and at 
the end opposite the door, there is a superimposed order of en- 
gaged columns, both with smooth shafts, the lower of Corin- 
thian, and the upper of the Ionic order. The ceiling was 
coffered in squares, enclosing two reliefs, of Elabelos and his 


It is unfortunate that in no case have we a photograph of any 
column from which a particular inscription has been taken. 


However, since the consoles on which the inscriptions were 
cut, are of a piece with the drum of the shaft, it is evident 
that a colonnade cannot be later than its earliest inscription, 
especially, as in this case, when there are inscriptions covering 
a continuous series of years. 

The photographs of the American Expedition 369 show part 
of this colonnade, with Corinthian capitals whose leaves have 
the crisp Greek section. 

A list of all dated inscriptions from the colonnade, complete 
so far as we know, is added. 

de Vogue 370 Wadd. 371 C.I.G. Location Date 

8 372 I29A.D. 

9 163 

10 2 593 fi rst of four standing, 179 

with double consoles. 

11 2 594 next to above 179 

12 2595 " " " 179 

13 2592 4506 179 
19 23- ? 373 


The inscription on a column of the pronaos, dating the tem- 
ple, 374 131 A.D., and also Hadrian's journey to Palmyra, are 
discussed by de Vogue. 375 It may be added that the space 
between the first numeral and the "vinculum" of the second 
numeral is too great for the first figure of the date to be a five ; 
it must therefore have been four, thus giving the year 442 
Seleucid era, or 131 A.D. 

Another inscription, in very poor preservation, is found on 
the console of the column at the south-east corner. The date 
is incomplete ; but Lidzbarski, on the basis of other dated in- 
scriptions containing the same name, has restored it as 390 Sel. 
or 79 A.D. 376 This would not be surprising in view of the 
character of the architectural details. 

The Temple is tetrastyle, prostyle, with one column on the 
return. Apparently there was no podium. The Attic bases 
of the unfluted Corinthian shafts rested on low square plinths. 
The capitals, about i.i lower diameters high, have leaves of the 
crisp Greek section. The entablature is simple. The frieze is 
carved with acanthus rinceaux, without any projecting heads 
or other additions. Every detail in fact points to a monument 


executed under a purely Hellenistic influence. For example, 
the tendrils of the acanthus are not wholly encased in leaves, 
as in the Trajan Forum in Rome. 377 The height of the cornice, 
about .72 lower diameters, is considerably less than that of 
Roman examples, 378 and the whole entablature, about 2.14 
lower diameters, is relatively low. The mouldings of the two 
windows, set high in the cella wall, between two of the pilasters 
that adorn the exterior, are simple. The form of the windows 
themselves is trapezoidal, as in the early parts of the peribolos 
wall of the Bel Temple. The architectural style, then, would 
seem to confirm Lidzbarski's opinion as to the date of the 
second inscription mentioned above, and the Temple may very 
well belong to the first century A.D. 


The so-called Diocletian basilica, camp, or headquarters 379 
stood just to the north of the entrance of the Wadi il-Kebur, 
on the very outskirts of the city. Owing to a Latin inscrip- 
tion 380 on a broken architrave of the building, it has always 
been considered a work of Diocletian' time, despite the striking 
evidence of the architecture to the contrary. 381 

Among the Palmyrene inscriptions of de Vogue, he gives 
one 382 "grand edifice ruine, qui parait avoir ete un temple ; au 
sud : ouest de la grande colonnade. Sur le linteau." Wood's 
plan of the city shows but one such ruin, namely that of the 
Diocletian building. 383 To this it may very probably have 
belonged, and as it was on a lintel, it must have been either 
from the cella entrance or from the door in the interior, de 

Vogue translates the inscription as follows: " the safety 

of that of his children, and of his brothers, in the year 

46 t these and all its ornamentation, with his money." 

It is evident from the language that the building was de- 
voted to a religious use. A man did not erect civil structures 
for the safety of his family. The date as it stands in the 
Palmyrene text 384 is 460, which is the year 148/149 of our era. 
Unfortunately there is a blank after the date, which was 
probably filled by the name of the month. Yet, even if more 
figures had originally been cut there, the space available is 
such that, in the Palmyrene notation, at the maximum, there 
could not have been more than a twenty, a ten, a five, and four 
ones, making the highest possible total, 499 Sel. which is 
187/188 A.D. 


The inscription is doubly important. For it not only confirms 
the natural conclusions as to the period of the architecture, but 
also, by its text, helps to determine the character and purpose of 
the building. 

The plan is extraordinary, 385 but the building was too well 
preserved when Wood examined it to cause any doubt of its 
accuracy. 386 Were it not for the continuation of the "nave" or 
cella between the colonnaded wings, it would have a strong 
resemblance to the basilica at Colonia luliae Fanestri, built by 
Vitruvius. 387 On the other hand, a comparison of the eleva- 
tions 388 will show still more striking differences. The singular 
plan would seem to indicate a special temple form such as a 
Nymphaeum. 389 

The superstructure stood upon a high podium, approached 
by sixteen steps. The central part had the form of a tetrastyle, 
prostyle temple. The four columns of the entrance stood upon 
high pedestals, with base and cap mouldings. These are car- 
ried as a continuous base course beneath the columns of the 

The Corinthian capitals are slightly less than a lower diame- 
ter in height, 390 a proportion that no Roman example shows. 391 
The leaves have the crisp Greek 'V section, as even the small 
photograph of the American Expedition will show. 392 In place 
of the 'flos' on the abacus there is a small bust, probably that 
of the founder. The entablature is quite simple. The pulvi- 
nated frieze is not carved. 393 The sima shows the palmette in 
its Greek form. 394 The proportions of the entablature are given 
below, in comparison with those of the Athena Temple at 
Priene, 395 and those of the Ionic order of the Baths of Diocle- 
tian. 396 

Baths of 

Nymphaeum? Temple, Priene Diocletian 

architrave .62 .78 1.12 

field of frieze .35 .5 .93 

cornice .7 .92 1.53 

entablature 1.6 2.2 3.6 

The common unit is the lower diameter. 

The decoration of the front cella wall is richer than we have 
seen at Palmyra, for the building, dating from the latter half 
of the second century, is later than any that we have consid- 
ered. On the panels of the pilasters at the corners of the 


cella, 397 and on the side of the jambs of the great cella door, 398 
the grape vine is exquisitely carved. The bay leaf occurs fre- 
quently, as on the cavetto of the abacus of the capitals, 399 and 
on the ovolo mouldings of the great door 400 and of the upper 
niches. 401 Beside the four niches in the pronaos wall, placed 
one above the other in pairs beside the great door, the plan 402 
and the view of the ruins 403 show three niches on the inner 
wall of the apse that terminated the cella. The exterior of the 
latter might be called octagonal, but reference to the plan will 
be better than any description. Within the cella a broad arch 
opened into the apse. Its archivolt was profiled with the same 
mouldings as those of the architrave, which was carried around 
the cella by Corinthian pilasters, and also continued around the 
apse. The mouldings of the archivolt are brought down upon 
this half entablature and do not continue it as in the case of 
an arched intercolumniation. The vaulting seems to have been 
of stone. 

Now in all the details of the building, there is nothing to 
suggest the massive forms with florid decoration of the archi- 
tecture of Diocletion's time. We have only to compare his 
work at Spalato, 404 the Baths in Rome that bear his name, 405 
or the Basilica of Maxentius 406 to realize how impossible it is 
that this building should have been constructed during his 
reign. Though we only possess examples from this period, 
carried out on an immense scale, their details suffice for the 
comparison. The altered proportions, the florid capitals and 
ornament in general are of a spirit and period totally different 
from that, still charged with Hellenistic influence, in which the 
Nymphaeum ? was built. 

The emperor's only connection with it was in utilizing a 
monument that had been standing more than a century, as his 


Colonnaded streets were a feature in the Greek cities of the 
East, made necessary because of the climate. 407 The line of 
columns at Palmyra extended more than 1500 meters, south- 
east and north-west, from the "arch of triumph" near the 
Temple of Bel to a point opposite the valley of the tombs, 
where doubtless there was a city gate. 

Rivoira has referred to this colonnade as of about the third 
century A.D., 408 but it belongs by no means to that period. We 


"have already seen in the cross colonnade that the inscriptions 
demand a construction at least as early as the beginning of 
the second century. 409 While but two inscriptions with assured 
-dates of that century have been found on the consoles of the 
Grand Colonnade, they are sufficient to indicate that its con- 
struction, if after that of the smaller colonnande, must have 
followed close upon it. Furthermore, the cutting of honorary 
inscriptions and the erection of statues upon the brackets did 
not necessarily begin as soon as the columns were in place. 

A complete list, so far as we know, of the dated inscriptions 
follows : 

deVogue 4 Wadd 4 ^ 

Wood"* c.I.G. Location Date 

On back of same drum 127 A.D. 413 

as next or 327 414 

2591 Western part 158 

6 2596 Next above 193 

2597 First to east with insc. 224/225 

15 IV ,9 2598 4483 East part betw. second arcade 

and tetrapylon 242/243 

4 415 ,10 2599 4490 Near center 247 

22 V.n 2600 

17 VI, 12 26bl 4484 254 

7 VII, 13 2603 4486 257/258 

23 2602 Beside deV No. 22 258 

20 ,14 2604 4495 Near deV No. 25 258/259 

18 2605 East part beside deV No. 17 259 

24 X,i9 2607 4496 262 

26o6a6 Near deV No. 27 262/268 

25 4 " 2 6o6 Near deV No. 20 262 

26*18 vill,i6 2610 4499 264 

26o8 419 4497 East part, s.e. of deV No. 26 265 

27 IX, 17 2609 4498 267 

28 * Near center to left 271 

29 2611 Beside last and deV No. 23 271 

The best illustrations by which to judge of the capitals, are 
Bonfils, photo. No. 391, or No. 428 of the American Expedi- 
tion. They show not only the crisp, 'V shaped section of the 
acanthus, characteristic of Greeek work, but also that the 
"eyes" formed between two leaves, lie quite away from the 
central stem. This also is a Greek characteristic, as compari- 
son with Roman examples will show. 420 

In the course of the colonnade are set arches 421 that must 
have been constructed at the same time. All have archivolts, 


profiled with three fasciae to correspond to the architrave on 
the columns. They spring from an impost block, similarly 
profiled, that rests upon a low pier with a Corinthian cap. This 
is the logical outcome of a construction such as that in the 
springing of the apse arch of the Nymphaeum. 




1 P. 184. 

2 P. 185. 

3 As Puchstein, in Jhb., XVII, 1902, p. no. 

4 Butler, Arch, p. 342. 

5 Puchstein, op. cit., pp. 109-110. 
6 Appianus, Bel. Civ. lib. V. 

7 Butler, Arch., p. 342. 
8 Delbrueck, II, pp. in, 112, 176. 

9 Diehl, Manuel d'Art Bysantin, p. 22. 

10 Butler, Arch., p. 48. 

11 Cf. temples of Vesta at Tivoli, and of Minerva at Assisi ; and see 
Ddbrueck, D. T., p. 26. 

12 See on frieze of western peribolos wall at Palmyra, p. 31, and 
Wood tab. XI. 

13 There is one exception, the eastern Temple of Baal at Palmyra. 

14 Modillions are found, however, at Dj crash, Philadelphia, Amman 
and in other instances. 


de Vogue, Temple de Jerusalem, pp. 38-43 pis. XXXIV-XXXV. 

16 Irby and Mangles, Travels in Egypt and Nubia, Syria and the Holy 
Land, p. 146. See also Josephus, Antiq. Jud., XII, iv, n; De Saulcy, 
Voyage en Terre Sainte, pp. 211-235; Conder, Survey of Eastern Pales- 
tine, pp. 65-87. For further references see Butler, op. cit., p. 25. 

" PUAES II, AI, pp. 1-19. 

18 P. & C, V, pi. XI. Cf. the enameled brick decoration in the harem 
at Khorsabad, P. & C., II, pi. XV. 

19 Magnesia, p. 127 ; date, p. 22. 

20 Butler, op. cit., p. 10. Examples at Rome may be found in 
Stadium on the Palatine; Library on the Palatine; Atrium Vestae; 
Aediculae Vestae; Temple of Antoninus and Faustina; Temple of 
Saturn (in some cases). 

21 Priene, p. 92. Magnesia, p. 135. 

22 Op. cit., p. 10. 

23 Cf. propylaea at Magnesia, Tholos and Theatre at Epidauros ; all 
of these show this in moderation, while the portico of Athena Polias at 
Pergamon, like the Temple of Fortuna Virilis at Rome, has a decided 

24 Butler, op. cit., ill. 5, 6, frag. No. I. 

25 Marquand, fig. 8r. 
26 Marquand, fig. 83. 

27 For other instances see Jhb. 1914, p. 56 and note I. 


28 Delbrueck, II, p. 159, refers them to Alexandria; so Wiegand in 
Jhb. 1914, p. 42, and also those at Si and Kanawat. 
29 Marquand, fig. 258. 
3 Butler, op. cit., ill. 5, 6. frag. No. 8. 
31 Epidaure, p. 55. 
32 Marquand, p. 138. 
ss Butler, op. cit., ill. 5, frag. No. 4. 
34 Choisy, I, pp. 322-3. 
ss Butler, op. cit., ill. 5, 6, frag. No. 8. 

36 ZDPV, 1902, p. 157, abb. 30. 

37 Butler, Arch., p. 330. 

38 Butler, Arch., p. 336. 

39 P. & C, I, p. 572, and pi. VIII; cf. also Delbrueck, II, p. 159. 
4 P. & C., V, pp. 456, 491. 

^Fouilles de Delphes, II, I, pi. XV. 

42 Clerisseau, Monuments de Nimes, pi. LIII, LVI. 

Butler, PUAES, II, AI, ill. 5, 6, frag. No. 11, and pp. 11, 16. 

44 Homolle, in BCH (1884), VIII, pi. XVII. 

45 JHS, XII, 1891, p. 134. 

46 For Persian capitals, with bulls' heads, breasts, and legs, see P. & 
C, V, fig. 311 ; cf. P. & C., V, pis. I, IV. 

47 PUAES, II, AI, p. 17; cf. de Vogue, Temple de Jerusalem, p. 41, 
and Butler, Arch, p. 342. 


48 de Vogue, pi. I. See also, de Laborde, Voyage de la Syrie, p. 119, 
pi. 59. Butler, Arch., pp. 324-327. B-D, III, pp. 98-101. 

49 Corp. Insc. Semit. II, 162. 

50 As pyramid at Sakkara, P. & C., I, p. 214; pyramid at Medum, 
P. & C., I, p. 221 ; the Kabr Hiram, near Tyre, P. & C., Ill, p. 165. 

51 de Vogue, p. 29. 

52 Newton, History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and 
Branchidae, I, pi. 63. 

53 Gardner, Sculptured Tombs of Hellas, p. 226. 
54 Reinach, pi. Archit. Asie Min. II, 7. 

55 B-D, I, figs. 117-173. 

56 Puchstein, die Nabataischen Grabfassaden; in Jhb. 1910. Arch. 
Anz., I, abb. i-io. 

57 Marquand, p. 374. 

58 Overbeck, Geschichte der Gr. Plastik, II, p. 191. 

59 Hamdey Bey-Reinach, Une Necropole Royale a Sidon, pp. 238-271, 
pis. 4-1 i. 

60 Marquand, p. 60. 

61 Cf. Marquand, p. 133. 

62 Butler, Arch., p. 326. 

3 Butler, Arch., p. 326; cf. Propylaea at Palatitza, Choisy, I, p. 316; 
and Temple of Zeus at Nemea, Marquand, p. 134; and Temple of 
Dionysos at Pergamon, Jhb. Preuss., 1889, p. 38; also Durm, Gr., p. 228, 
abb. 151. 

64 Cf. Choisy, I, p. 316, fig. 15. 


65 Marquand, p. 321. 

66 Knackf uss, das Rathaus von Milet, pp. 46, 52. 

67 de Vogue, p. 30. 

68 Durm, R., p. 378. 

69 Butler, Arch., p. 325. Corp. Insc. Semit, II, 195. 

70 de Vogue, pi. IV. de Laborde, op. cit., pi, 56, p. 120 ; Butler, Arch., 
PP. 327-334 ; B-D, III, pp. 93-96. 

71 Butler, Arch., p. 333. 

72 Butler, Arch., fig. 118. 

73 Butler, Arch., p. 354. 

74 For Oriental use of seven columns, cf. Benoit, p. 142. 

75 Cf. Butler, Arch., pp. 330, 331, and our section on Arak il-Emir. 

76 Cf. second (upper) order at Arak il-Emir. 

77 In the agora at Magnesia, the outermost intercolumniations meas- 
ure 1.80, the rest, 1.30. Magnesia, p. 115, abb. 118-119. 

78 See pp. n, 12. 

79 Butler, Arch., pp. 33O-33L 

80 Butler, Arch., pp. 330-331. 
81 Pergame, fig. on p. 55. 

82 Cf. a similar use in the Temple of Saturn at Rome. 

83 Bell, The Thousand and One Churches, pp. 448-456 ; and Delbrueck, 

II, PP. 97-99- 

84 Kleinasien, pp. 38, 39; also in JHS, 1907, p. 115; cf. Rivoria, Le 
Origini della Architettura Lombarda, I, pp. 7 ff. 

85 Texier, Ruins, pi. 32. 

86 This can be plainly seen on the Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 520. 
Less clearly illus. on p. 333 of Butler, Arch. 

87 Cited by Butler, Arch., p. 333 ; see also footnote to p. 316 ; cf. But- 
ler, Arch., p. 32 and note; and Jhb. Preuss., 1904, pp. 266-268. 

88 On this point, and for references, see Strzygowski, in Jhb. Preuss., 
1904, p. 263. 

89 Strzygowski, op. cit., taf . VIII. 

90 See pp. 15, 16. 

91 Strzygowski has asserted this as true when the use of vaults was 
introduced, Kleinasien, pp. 38-39. 


92 de Vogue, pp. 31-38, pis. 2, 3, 4. 

93 Butler, Arch., pp. 334-340 ; his conclusions have been found to be in 
perfect accord with the date of the Temple, discovered since the pub- 
lication of this work. A more complete publication by him is found in 
PUAES, II, A6, pp. 373-385. 

94 Dated by Savignac, Rev. Bibl, 1904, p. 581. 

9 * AAES, IV, pp. 85-90, No. i. PUAES, IV A, pp. 76-78, No. 100. 

96 Butler, Arch., p. 333- 

97 See Butler, Arch., p. 330. 

98 de Vogue, pi. 4. 

99 For a discussion of periboloi, see pp. 26, 27. 

100 Butler, Arch., p. 336. 

101 See under the discussion of the composite capitals of the temple 
at Mushennef, pp. 19, 20. 


102 de Vogue, pi. 3. ; 

"3 PUAES, II, A6, pp. 385-390. 

104 Pp. 79-91. 

i 5 But cf. pp. 6, 7, n. 28. 

106 33/32-13/12 is the date of the Temple of Baal Samin. An in- 
scription, found on a pedestal before the Temple of Dushara, PUAES, 
IV A, No. 101, gives the terminus ad quern of about 30 A.D. See 
also Florilegium Melchior de Vogue, pp. 90-91 and note 2. 

ior PUAES, IV A, No. 101. 

IDS Priene, p. 229. 

109 Conze, II, p. 44, fig. 20. 

110 Curtius, Beitrdge zur Geschichte u. Typographic Kleinasiens, 
p. 56; and illus. in Durm, R., abb. 283, 285; see also Choisy, I, p. 519, 
and Curtius, in Abh. Berl Akad., 1872, article Mahltepa. 

-Ath. Mitt. 1878, taf. VII. 

112 Priene, abb. 223, pp. 227-229. 

113 Priene, abb. 199, 200, p. 217. 

114 Priene, abb. 273, pp. 268, 269, 274. 

115 Spalato, ein Markstein der Romanischen Kunst, p. 326; cf. Del- 
brueck, II, p. 134. 

116 Spalato, ein Markstein der Romanischen Kunst, p. 327. 

117 In Ilgs Kunstgeschichtlichen Charakterbildern aus Oest.-Ungarn., 
pp. 44 ff. 

118 See n. 115. 

119 Sybel, Weltgeschichte d. Kunst, p. 419. 

120 Kanawat, Temple of Zeus, central span about 5 meters, Butler, 
Arch., p. 352. 

Kanawat, Peripteral Temple, central span about 5 meters, Butler, 
Arch., p. 357- 

121 See n. 92. 

122 Butler, Arch., pp. 343-346; see also n. 139. 

123 Butler, Arch., pp. 351-357; more fully pub. with revised plan, 
PUAES, II, AS, pp. 346-350. 

124 Butler, Arch., pp. 351-357. 

125 Butler, Rev. Arch., VIII, 1906, pp. 413-423 ; fully pub. in PUAES, 

ii, AS, pp. 315-322. 

126 de Vogue, pi. 28, pp. 74, 75- 

127 Referred to in Butler, PUAES, II, Ai, p. 46, and. ill. on p. 45; for 
date see Jhb. 1902, p. 106, and n. 34. 

"8 Butler, PUAES, II, Ai, pp. 43-46. 


129 Butler, Arch., pp. 47-49. 

130 de Vogue, pi. 93. Butler, Arch., pp. 59, 60. 

131 II Chron, III, 17. 

132 Pausanias, IX, 25, 2 ; IX, 30, 7 ; IV, 32, 3. 

133 Humann u. Puchstein : Reisen in Kleinasien u. Nord Syrien, abb. 
34, taf. XV. 

134 Humann u. Puchstein: Reisen in Kleinasien u. Nord Syrien, abb. 
39-41, 43, taf. XVI, XVII. 


"5 AAES, III, No. 87; Wadd. No. 2687. 

136 Butler, Arch., p. 59. 

137 Cf. the section on the Kasr il-Abd at Arak il-Emir. 


138 Butler, Arch., pp. 343-346 Rey ; Voyage dans le Hauran, pi. IX. 
<le Laborde, Voyage de la Syrie, pi. 53, pp. 112, 113. von Oppenheim, 
vom Mittelmeer sum Persischen Golf, opp. p. 100 (wrongly labeled 
Kanawat). B-D, III, pp. 102-105 (calls it south temple). 

139 151 A.D. so AAES, III, No. 427a; Wadd., No. 2372; C. I. G., 
No. 4608; C. I. R., Ill, No. 1237; Dussaud, Mission dans les Regions 
desertiques de la Syrie Moyenne, p. 20; but, B-D, III, p. 102, prefers 
date of 211 A.D. Wiegand, Jhb. 1914, p. 59, follows him. This does not 
seem possible for all the evidence of the architecture is to the contrary. 
The forms of the Temple at Hebran (PUAES, II, AS, pp. 323-325) 
which is dated certainly 155 A.D. (PUAES, III, AS, No. 659) cannot 
be earlier than those at Atil. Moreover the Princeton Expedition found 
several temple inscriptions from the time of Antoninus Pius, as, from 
Djren (about to be published in PUAES as No. 792), from Babiska 
(PUAES, III, 64, No. 1092), from Burdj Bakirha (AAES, III, No. 
48) and from Hebran, mentioned above. On the other hand they found 
but one dated building of the time of Caracalla, and that is a fortress. 
Inscriptions of any sort, of the time of Caracalla, in Syria are very 

140 See pp. 12-14. 

141 Sec p. 13, n. 109. 

142 See p. 22. 

143 So called by Puchstein, Jhb., XVII, 1902, p. 106; called Sun 
Temple by Schumacher, ZDPV, 1902, pp. 132-137. 

144 Schumacher, op. cit., p. 132, and taf. 9; Puchstein, op. cit., p. 112. 
145 Texier, Ruins, p. 42. 

146 Best seen in the Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 522. 

147 See pp. 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 37- 

148 von Oppenheim, op. cit., loc. cit. 

1 49 Cf., p. 29, n. 313. 

iso F or clearest view see Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 521, taken from 
^the other temple. 

isi JHS, XXVII, 1907, PP. 114, US- 

1 52 Kleinasien, p. 38. 

153 Jhb., 1914, p. 64. 

i* 4 de Vogue, pi. 94- PUAES, II, BS, pp. 259, 260. 

155 d e Vogue, pi. 92, 92 bis. 


156 By an inscription on the pylon, AAES, III, No. 48 ; Hermes, 
XXXVIII, p. 118. 

1 57 Butler, Arch., facing p. 68. 
158 Choisy, I, p. 566. 


159 Puchstein in Jhb, 1902, p. 112. 

160 See n. 156 and 157. 

161 See n. 219. 

162 Jhb, 1902, taf. 5, and pp. 94-99 ; but cf. Wiegand, Jhb, 1914, pp. 
43 ff. and p. 90. 

163ZDPV, 1902, taf. 9; but see Wiegand, Jhb. 1914 p. 56 n. 2. 
164 Puaes, II, AS, pp. 315-322. 
"5Serv. Aen. II, 115. 

166 Koldwey u. Puchstein, die Griechischen Tempel in Unteritalien 
u. Sicilien, p. 79. 

167 See last note. 

168 Cf. Butler, Arch., pp. 321-324. 

169 ZDPV, 1902, p. 135, taf. 9. 

170 See n. 219. 

171 de Vogue, p. 46. 

172 See n. 164. 

173 Jhb, 1902, taf. 5. 

174 Rev. Arch., 1906, pp. 413-423. 

175 Butler, Arch., p. 67. 

176 d'Espouy, pi. 92. 

177 See pp. 4, 6. 

178 See n. 157. 

179 Magnesia, abb. 103. 

180 Conze, I, p. 16. 

I 8 * Conze, I, taf. LXI, LXII. 

"2 Conze, II, taf. XXXVIII- XL, XLV- XLVII. 

IBS Magnesia, abb. 92. 

184 Pergame, p. 117. 

iss Porter, Mediaeval Arch. I, p. 31 and note. 


186 Butler, Arch., pp. 346-351. 

187 Butler, Arch., p. 347. 

188 AAES, III, No. 38oa, Wadd. No. 2212; Inscription on lintel of 
gate of peribolos, of 41 A.D. in AAES, III, No. 380. 

189 Butler Arch., fig. 122. 

190 Butler Arch., p. 349. 
191 Didymes, p. 151. 

192 d'Espouy, pi. 12. 

193 See pp. 4, 6. 

194 Anderson and Spiers, Architecture of Greece and Rome, 2ed, 
pp. 183, 184. 

195 Petrie, Third Memoir of Egypt Explor. Fund; Naukratis I, pi. III. 

196 d'Espouy, pi. 12 

197 d'Espouy, pi. 78. 

198 Antiquities of Ionia, II, pi. L. 

199 Durm, G, pp. 247-248. Delbrueck, D.T., pp. 52, 53; Magnesia, p. 
170. Examples are: 

Teos Dionysos Temple, end of III Cent. B.C. (begun by 
at least 193 B.C.) Antiq. Ionia, I, ch. I, pi. II; dated in Mag- 
nesia, p. 164 note 2. 


Magnesia i. Agora (Magnesia, abb. 128, 130) ; 2. Propylon 
(Magnesia, abb. 135). Both are end of III Cent. B.C. 
(Magnesia, p. 164). 

Priene I. North Hall of Agora (Priene, abb. 194, 195). 
About 150 B.C. (Priene, p. 215) ; 2. Propylon of Athena 
Temple (Priene, abb. 104). First Cent. B.C. (Priene, p. 133). 

Didyma Temple of Appollo, 37-41 A.D. (Didymes, p. 123, 
pi. XI). Cf. Bates, Harvard Studies, 1899, p. 31. 

200 Delbrueck, D.T. p. 54 ; Delbrueck, II, p. 162. 

201 See n. 196. 

202 Reinach, pi. Archit. Asie Min. pi. 30 bis. Texier, Ruins, pi. 14. 

203 Koerte, das Alter des Zeus Tempels in Aizanoi, in the Festschrift 
fiir Otto Benndorf, pp. 209-214. 

204 For forms of the temple entablature see Reinach, pi. Archit. Asie 
Min. pi. 30. 

205 Conze, II, pi. XXVII ; for date see p. 45 of same. 

206 Reinach, pi. Archit. Asie Min. pi. 14 ; Texier, Ruins, pi. 20. 

207 Texier, Description, III, pi. 220. 

208 By Opramaos, after an earthquake ; see Benndorf-Niemann, Reisen 
in Lykien, Milyas, u. Kibyratis, p. 118. insc. XIX B. See also pp. 
125, 130. 

209 d'Espouy, pi. 95. A similar example at Announa; Expl. Scient. 
dans I'Algerie, II, pi. 17. 

210 Two capitals, showing this, are in the second hall of the Lateran 
Museum, Alinari photo. No. 6336. 

211 d'Espouy pi. 97. 

212 Princeton Art School, Coll. Photo. ; Arch. Anc. Rome 5, 2. 
!9ltIRgGThe 1-24. 

213 Durm, R, abb. 449. 

214 See pp. 22-24. 


215 Wadd. No. 2330. 

216 Wadd. No. 2331. 
2" Wadd. No. 23313. 

218 Butler, Arch., p. 351, places them about the time of Commodus. 

219 Butler, Arch., pp. 351-354. More fully pub., with revised plan, 
in PUAES, II, AS, pp. 346-350. Also pub. in B-D. Ill, pp. 134-137. 

220 ZDPV, 1902, taf. 9. 

221 See pp. 17, 18. 

222 See p. 19. 

223 See p. 31, n. 35O. 

224 de Laborde, Voyage de la Syrie, p. 114, pi. 54; Butler, Arch., pp. 
354-357, and attributed to Helios from insc; AAES, III, No. 407. 
Also pub. in B.-D. Ill, pp. 109-115. 

225 See p. 9 and n. 74. 
22 See p. 15. 

227 Cf. Delbrueck, D.T., p. 50. 

228 See p. 35- 


229 Butler, Arch., pp. 400-402. B.-D., Ill, pp. 181-185. 
23 AAES, III, No. 357. 


231 Butler, Arch., fig. 144. 

232 de Vogue, text, p. 33. 

233 Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 450. 

234 See pp. 19-21. 

235 As for instance, Chapel at Srir, Butler, Arch., illus. on p. 51. 

Church of St. Simeon Stylites, " " p. 189. 

Church of Kalb Lauzeh, p. 222. 

N. Church at Ruweha, " " p. 227. 

236 Delbrueck, II, pp. 164-167, 175. 

237 PUAES, II, Ai, p. 44. 

238 B.-D., Ill, pp. 14-20. PUAES, II, A4, pp. 243-247. 

239 Butler, Arch., p. 402. 

240 Cf. the Baths of Caracalla, and especially the florid composite 

241 This is found at Rome as early as the Baths of Agrippa, Benoit, 
P- 473- 

Bel Temple 

242 Wood, tab. I, A, C, tab. III-XXI; Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. 
No. 436-439 (437, 438 reproduced in Butler, Arch., pp. 50, 51) ; 
Bonfils Photo. No. 1323, 1325, 1326, 389; N.B. Parts of this section on 
the Temple of Bel were pub. in the A.J.A., 1915, pp. 268-276, where, 
by misadvertance, the names of Guillaume and Berthone were trans- 
posed on p. 268. 

243 Cf. small side door in temple Bet et-Tai at Djerash (ZDPV, 1902, 
abb. 12) and windows in Eastern Temple of Baal, Palmyra (see p. 34.) 
and in small temple at Januh in Lebanon (Jhb, 1902, p. .107, and note 
45, p. 112) ; cf. Strzygowski, Kleinasien, p. 130, note 5. 

244 Wood, tab. XVI. 

245 Jkb, 1902, p. 113. 

246 Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 439. 

247 See n. 262. 

248 Wood, tab. XIX. 

24 J. A. VIII, 1883, I, pp. 242-244. 
250AAES, IV, Pal. No. 3, pp. 62-65. 
251 AAES, IV, Pal. No. 4, PP- 62-65. 
22 See AAES, IV pp, 61, 62. 

253 S. B. A. W., 1887, p. 413, No. 102. 

254 AAES, IV, Pal. No. i, pp. 58, 59; also A.J.A., 1900, p. 437; J.A., 
1901, II, p. 379; Clermont-Ganneau, VII, pp. 12, 25; Lidzbarski, II, p. 

283, M. ; Sobernheim, MDVG, 1905, II, No. 10. 

255 This date is not positively certain. From the corresponding Greek 
inscription we can be sure it is of the first cent. A.D. See AAES, III, 
No. 352; Clermont-Ganneau, VII, pp. 12-14, 26; Lidzbarski, II, p. 

284, N. 

256 Pal. text in AAES, IV, Pal. No. 2, pp. 59-62; Sobernheim, MDVG, 
1905, II, p. 17, No. ii. 

257 Clermont-Ganneau, VII, pp. 10-11; Lidzbarski, II, p. 280, H.; 
Sobernheim, MDVG, 1905, II, p. n, No. 5. 


258 Clermont-Ganneau, VII, pp. n, 12.; Lidzbarski, II, p. 281, J.; 
Sobernheim, MDVG, 1905, II, p. 14, No. 7. 

259 Clermont-Ganneau, VII, p. 12 ; Lidzbarski, II, p ? 282, K. ; Sobern- 
heim, MDVG, 1905, II, p. 15, No. 8. 

260 Wood, op. cit., Marmor. Palm. V.; Wadd. No. 2589; C.I.G. No. 
4489- Euting. S.B.A.W., 1887, No.. 103. 

2 x Sobernheim, MDVG, 1905, II, p. 10, No. 2; Wadd, No. 2580; 
Wood, op. cit., Marmor. Palm. XXV; C.I.G., No. 4488. 

262 Sobernheim, MDVG, 1905, II, p. I, No. I ; Clermont-Ganneau, VII, 
pp. 2-10; Lidzbarski, II, p. 276, F; cf. Puchstein, Jhb., 1902, pp. 105, no. 

263 Jhb., 1902, p. in. 

264 Inscriptions Semitiques, Pal. No. I, 2. 
2 5AAES, IV, p. 61. 

266 Wood, tab. III-XVI, Butler, Arch., illus. on p. 51. 

2 67A S Karnak. 

268 Boetticher, Tektonik der Hellenen, p. 436. 

* Borrmann, die Funde von Olympia, taf . XXIX-XXX. 

27 Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, II, ch. i, pi. XXXI. 

271 See p. 41, n. 92. There seems also to have been a peribolos at 
Mushennef, AAES, III, p. 298; and at Djebel Shekh Berekat, Butler, 
Arch., p. 47, and AAES, III, pp. 104-126. 

272 Texier, Ruins, pi. n. 

273 ZDPV, 1902, pp. 132-137. 

274 Texier, Ruins, pi. 27. 

275 Butler in PUAES, II, Ai, p. 35, and plan on p. 42. 

276 Altchristliche Architektur, p. 10. 

277 Jhb., looi, pp. 133-160; 1902, pp. 87-123. 

278 Expl. Scient. dans VAlgerie, pi. 45. 

279 Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, p. 81. 

280 Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, p. 81. 

281 Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, p. 429. 

282 FUR, 15. B.C., 1878, pi. IV, V. 

283 Jordan, III, p. 574. 

284 Martial, III, 20, 11; XI, I, 12. Juvenal, VI, 153. 

285 Prop. II, 31, 2, 9. Veil. II, 81. 

286 Pliny, H. N. XXXVI, 4, 23. For conjectural plan, see Rom. 
Mitt. 1806, p. 200. 

287 Jordan, III, p. 66. 

288 Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, p. 445. 

289 FUR, 15, 21. 
29 FUR, 16. 

291 Those about the temples of 

Bonus Eventus Character of enclosure cannot be determined. 

Jordan, III, p. 581. See B.C. 1878, pp. 212-213. 1891, pp. 224- 

227. FUR, 21. 
Claudius Mart, de Sped. II, 9. Jordan, FUR, 33, but cf. 

Jordan, III, rp. 233, and FUR, 29, 30, 35, 36. 
Divorum in aede Divi Titi Jordan, III, pp. 564, 565. 
lupiter Stator and luno Regina Jordan, III, pp. 538-542. 

FUR, 21. 


Hercules and Muses Jordan, III, p. 545. 
Quirinus Jordan, III, pp. 407-410. FUR, 16. 
Venus and Rome Jordan, III, pp. 17-20. FUR, 29. 

292 Delbrueck, II, p. 125. Vitruv. Ill, 2, 5. 

293 Wood, tab. I, 'C, and plan, tab. III. 
29 *Wood, tab. XII, 'B'. 

29 5 Wood, tab. I, 'C, and tab. IV. 

296 Bonfils, Photo. No. 389. Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 437 (repro- 
duced in Butler, Arch., p. 51). 

297 Wood, p. 42, description of tab. IV. 

298 Butler, Arch.; illus. p. 51 ; cf. the peribolos wall of the temple of 
Aphrodite at Aphrodisias, referred to in note 85. 

299 Butler, loc cit., and Wood, tab. XIV and XI. 

300 Bonfils, Photo, No. 389. 

301 See n. 294. 

302 Cf. p. 16, n. 151 and n. 153. 

3 s Wood, tab. VI, VII, IX, XI, XIV. 

304 Cf. Jhb. Preuss, 1904, pp. 260-262. 

305 See note 296. 

306 See portions of wall each side of entrance, Wood, tab. IV. 

307 See discussion of west wall below. 
s 8 Jhb. f 1902, p. in. 

3 9 No. 3. 

310 No. 4. 

311 No. 5. 

3 i 2 C/. AAES, IV, p. 65. 

313 Cf. Strzygowski, in Jhb. Preuss, 1904, p. 288. 

314 Bonfils, Photo, No. 1323, 1326. Wood, tab. XVII (omits decora- 

315 See pp. 9-n. 

316 See pp. H-I2. 

317 See pp. 12-14. 

sis Cf. AAES, IV, p. 93 and PUAES, IV A, intro. pp. ix, x. 
319 Casts of the entire door are now on exhibition in the Library of 
Princeton University. 
820 de Vogue, pi. 3, 'A'. 
32 iWood, tab. XVI. 
322ZDPV, 1902, pp. 137, 138. 

323 Wood, tab. XVIII, T. 

324 Wood, tab. XVII, 'F. 

325 PUAES, II, B5, op. p. 236. 

326 Epidaure, pi. VII, date, p. 106. 

327 Epidaure, ill. p. 210, date, p. 214 and note I. 
328 Reinach, pi. Archit. Asie Min. II. 
329 Choisy, I, p. 551. 

830 B.C., 1878, tav. II-III, fig. i. 

331 B.C., 1878, p. 24. 

332 B.C., 1878, p. 12. 

333 Wood, tab. Ill, IV, and restoration in tab. XIV. N.B. The plan 


in tab. IV, giving the conjectured elevation of the exterior, is taken 
from the interior; and vice versa in tab. XIV. 

334 Sturgis, Diet, of Arch. Ill, p. 728. It must be remembered that 
the upper part of Wood's restoration is entirely a matter of conjecture. 
See tab. I, 'B', for the condition of the entrance at the time of Wood's 

335 See pp. 12-14. 

336 Tomb of Elabelos, 103 A.D. see below. 

337 See p. 16. 
338 Durm, R. abb. 465. 
33 9Wood, tab. IX, XI. 
s *Jhb., 1914, PP. 37-50, 58-63. 

341 Wood, tab. XV. 

342 Cresy and Taylor, Arch. Antiq. of Rome, pi. LXXIII. d'Espouy, 

pl. 53, 56. 

343 Cresy and Taylor, Arch. Antiq. of Rome, pl. LXXXI. 

344 Cresy and Taylor, Arch. Antiq. of Rome, pl. LXXXVI. 

345 See Marquand, fig. 261. 

34 <5 Wood, Ruins of Baalbec, tab. XXXVII. 

347 Jhb., 1902, taf . 9. 

^ 48 Revue des Deux Mondes, CXLII, 1897, p. 400. 

349 Nuova Antologia, 1904, p. 266. 

sso Delbrueck, II, p. 165. 

85i Wood, tab. XV. 

352 Wood, tab. XI. Cf., that at Aphrodisias referred to in note 85. 

353 Photo.. Anderson No. 1850, reproduced in fig. 55 of Tropaeum 
Traiani, by Studniczka, which see, pp. 93-104, on this point. 

354 d'Espouy, pis. 62-64. 

355 Studniczka, op. cit., pp. 85, 86. 

356 d'Espouy, pl. 80. 

357 d'Espouy, pl. 75. 

sssQn doors; Wood, tab. VIII 'B', XII 'A', XLVIII ; on windows 
and niches, X 'B', 'C, XII 'B', L.; on cymatia of cornices, XXIII, 

359 Vopiscus, Div. Aurelianus, ch. 31. 

ssoWood, tab. II, 23, 38. 

361 de Vogue, p. 73 and pl. 26. 

362 de Vogue, Sem. Insc. Pal. No. 36. Wadd. No. 2614. C.I.G. No. 


363 Cf. p. 8. 

3 6 4 Wood, tab VIII 'D'. 
3 s Wood, tab. XLII. 
366 Wood, tab. I. 

3 7 Wood, tab. LV 'A', LVI, LVII; location, tab. I 'a'. 

sea Wood, op cit., M armor. Palm. II ; de Vogue, Sem. Insc. Pal. No- 
37-59; C.I.G. No. 4505; Wadd, No. 2615. 
Cross Colonnade 

see Wood, tab. I, '?', II, ii. Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 446. 

37 SV'm. Insc. Pal. 

371 Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie. 

372 This inscription mentions a coating of colour applied to the 

373 The Palymrene figures are partly erased, but the latest possible 
date would be 289 A.D. 

Eastern Temple of Baal or Baal Samin 

374 Wood, tab. XXVII to XXXI, and XXXII 'E'. Location in tab. 
I 'M', II, 27. Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 443, 444. 

375 de Vogue, Sem. Insc. Pal. No. 16. See also Wadd. No. 2585; 
Clermont-Ganneau, VII, pp. 14, 15 and C.I.G. No. 4482. 

376 Lidzbarski, II, p. 287, P. cf. MDVG, 1905, II, p. 21, No. 14, and 
Clermont-Ganneau, VII, p. 14. 

377 See note 353- 

378 Cornice of Temple of Vespasian, 0.8 lower diameters ; of Pan- 
theon, interior order, 0.85. of exterior order, 0.9. 


379 Called "Diocletianische Standlager, namentlich dessen Principia" 
by Puchstein, Jhb., 1902, p. 105; illustrations: Wood, tab. XLIV-LII, 
and LV 'B'; Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 441, 442. 

3 o Wood, op. cit., Marmor. Palm. XXVII. Wadd. No. 2626; C.I.L. 
Ill, 133, p. 1219, No. 6661. 

38 iWood, p. 31. Puchstein, loc. cit. Guillaume, in his report on the 
work of Berthone, Revue des Deux Mondes, CXLII, 1897, p. 395, 
mentions" les restes de ce qu'on nomme le palais de Diocletien, mais 
qui semble plutot un chateau d'eau ou une nymphee." Cf. also Euting, 
SBAW, 1885, p. 671 on No. 4 and Clermont-Ganneau, V, p. 93, n. 2. 

3 2 No. 14. 

383 Marked 18 on tab. II. Nos. 15, 16, and 17 even in his time were 
"so much ruined that we could not even guess at their plan." No one 
of these could possibly justify the description in de Vogue. 

384 de Vogue, Sem. Insc. plate 2, No. 14. 
38 5Wood, tab. XLIV. 

386 Wood, tab. LII. 

387 Vitruv. V, i, 17. See Choisy, Vitruve, I, pp. 186-188. IV, pi. 46, 47- 
also, Prestel, des M. Vitruvlus Pollio basilica zu Fanum Fortunae, 
Strassburg, 1901. 

sss Wood, tab. XLV, LII. Durm, R. abb. 701. 

389 See note 381 and compare the restoration of the (later) 
Nymphaeum at Amman, Butler in PUAES, II, Ai, ill. 38, and pi. V. 

390 Actually about 0.96 lower diameters. 

391 Temple Mars Ultor, capitals equal i.n lower diameters 

" Vespasian, " " 1.23 " 

Castor, " " i.i i " 

Pantheon, interior, " " 1.14 " 

exterior, " 1.12 " 

392 No. 442. 

393 The fragment pub. in Jhb. Preuss. 1904, p. 276, is undoubtedly 
from a niche, such as shown in Wood, tab. XLVII. 

394 See p. 31 and n. 355. 

395 Mauch, Architektonischen Ordnungen, taf. 29. 


396 Mauch, Architektonischen Ordnungen, II, taf. 2. 

397 Wood,. tab. LI 'A'. 

398 LI 'B'. 

399 XLVI, and LI 'A'. 

400 XLVIII. 

401 " L t 

402 XLIV. 

403 LII ; see also Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 441. 

404 Adam, Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Spalato; 
Niemann, der Palast Diokletian's in Spalato: Hebrard et Zeiller, Le 
Palais de Diocletian. 

405 Paulin, Thermes de Diocletien. 
406 Bunsen, Beschreibung, III, p. 291. 

Grand Colonnade 

407 As at Ephesos, Antioch, Dj crash, Amman. 

408 Rivoira, Lombardic Architecture, I, p. 50. 

409 Cf. Clermont-Ganneau, V, pp. 93, 94. 

410 SVm. Insc. 

411 Roman numerals refer to his Palmyrene inscriptions ; Arabic to 
the Greek inscriptions. 

412 See n. 371. 

413 Clermont-Ganneau, V, pp. 92-94, No. 638. 

414 Wolfe Expedition to Babylonia ; Papers of the American School 
at Athens, vol. Ill, 1884-1885, pp. 439, 44.0. 

415 He Vogue makes an error by translating the date as 147. 

416 The Palmyrene is not given ; See C.I.R. No. 1045 which gives date 

417 Date corrected by Littmann, AAES, IV, p. 84. Clermont-Gan- 
neau, VII, p. 38. 

4 *s Wadd. and Loewy, ZDMG, XVIII, 1864, No. VIII, give date as 

419 Palmyrene text in AAES, IV, Pal. No. 10. Cf. Clermont-Ganneau. 
VII, pp. 34, 35- 

420 Very close to the stem are the 'eyes' between the leaves of the 
capitals of the temples of Mars Ultor, Vespasian, Concord, Vesta, An- 
toninus and Faustina, and of the Pantheon portico. A typical Greek 
example with the 'eyes' far out from the central stem is the capital 
of the Tholos at Epidauros. 

421 Am. Arch. Ex. Photo. No. 429, 431, 430. Bonfils, Photo. No. 395. 




Abh. Berl. Akad. . . Abhandlungen der K. Akademie der Wissenschaf- 
ten zu Berlin. 

A J.A. . . American Journal of Archaeology. 

Ath. Mitt. .. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen In- 

stituts in Athen. 

B.C. . . Bulletino della Commissione archaeologica com- 

munale di Roma. 

BCH . . Bulletin de correspondance hellenique. 

Hermes . . Hermes ; Zeitschrif t f iir classische Philologie. 

J.A. . . Journal Asiatique. 

Jhb. . . Jahrbuch des K. Deutschen archaeologischen 


Jhb. Preuss. . . Jahrbuch der K. Akademie der Wissenschaften 

zu Berlin. 

JHS . . Journal of Hellenic Studies. 

MDVG . . Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. 

Rev. Arch. . . Revue Archeologique. 

Rev. Bibl. . . Revue Biblique. 

Rom. Mitt. . . Mitteilungen des Deutschen archaeologischen In- 

stituts in Rom. 

SB AW . . Sitzungsberichte der K. P. Akademie der Wissen- 

schaften zu Berlin. 

ZDMG . . Zeitschrif t des Deutschen morgenlandischen Ge- 


ZDPV . . Zeitschraft des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins. 


AAES . . Publications of an American Archaeological Ex- 

pedition to Syria in 1899-1900. 4 parts. New York, 
1903. Part II is referred to separately as Butler, 
Arch. q. v. 

Am. Arch. Ex. Photo . . Photographs taken by an American Archaeo- 
logical Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900. Apply 
to University Library, Princeton, N. J. 

Benoit ..Benoit: L'Architecture ; 1'Antiquite. Paris, 1911. 

B.-D. . . Bruennow u. von Domaszewski : die Provincia 

Arabia. 3 vols. Strassburg, 1904-1909. 

Butler, Arch. . . H. C. Butler : Architecture and other Arts in 
Northern Central Syria and the Djebel Hauran. 
Part II of the Publications of an American 



Conze I 
Conze II 
Delbrueck, D. T. 
Durm, Gr. 
Durm, R. 




Jordan FUR 



P. &C 


Archaeological Expedition to Sytia' 1 212' ' 1899- 

1900. q. v. 
. . Benndorf u. Niemann : Reisen in Lykien und 

Karien. 2 vols. Vienna, 1884-1889. 
. . Choisy : Histoire de 1'Architecture, 2 vols. Paris, 

, . Clermont-Ganneau : Recueil d'Archeologie Orien- 

tale, 7 vols. Paris, 1888-1906. 
..Conze, Hauser, Niemann: Archaeologische Unter- 

suchungen auf Samothrake, Vienna, 1875. 
, . Conze, Hauser, Benndorf : Neue Archaeologische 

Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, Vienna, 1880. 
, . Delbrueck : Hellenistische Bauten in Latium. 2 vols. 

Strassburg, 1907, 1912. 
. Delbrueck : die drei Tempel am Forum Holitorium 

in Rom. Rome, 1903. 
, . Pontremoli et Haussoullier : Didymes, Fouilles 

de 1895 et 1896. Paris, 1904. 
. Durm : die Baukunst der Griechen, 2te auflage. 

Darmstadt, 1892. 
, . Durm : die Baukunst der Etrusker und der Romer, 

2te auflage, Stuttgart, 1905. 
. Def rasse et Lechat : Epidaure, Paris, 1895. 
. d'Espouy: Fragments d'architecture antique. 

Paris, n. d. 

. Lanciani: Forma Urbis Romae, Milan, 1893-1901. 
. Jordan : Topographic der Stadt Rom im Alter- 

thum. vol. I, 3 parts, 1878-1907. 
. Jordan : Forma Urbis Romae, Berlin, 1874. 
. Koldewey u. Puchstein : die Grieschischen Tempel 

in Unteritalien und Sicilien, Berlin, 1899. 
. Lidzbarski : Ephemeris f iir Semitische Epigraphik, 

2 vols. Giessen, 1902, 1908. 
. Magnesia am Maeander, Bericht iiber die Ergeb- 

nisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1891-1893 von 

Carl Humann; die Bauwerke bearbeitet von 

Julius Kohte. die Bildwerke von Carl Watzinger. 

Berlin, 1904. 

. Marquand : Greek Architecture, New York, 1909. 
. Pontremoli et Collignon: Pergame. 
. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon. 
. Wiegand u. Schrader : Priene, Ergebnisse der Aus- 
grabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 

1895-1898. Berlin, 1904. 
. Perrot et Chipiez : Histoire de 1'Art dans 1'an- 

tiquite, 8 vols. Paris, 1882-1903. 
. Publications of the Princeton University Archae- 
ological Expedition to Syria in 1904-5, and 1909. 

Leyden, 1907 


Reinach .. Lehasr. Voyage Archeologique en Grece et en Asie 

Mineure. Publiees et commentees par S. Rei- 
nach, Paris, 1888. 

Texier, Description . . Texier : Description de 1'Asie Mineure, Paris,, 

Texier, Ruins . . Texier and Pullan : Principal Ruins of Asia 
Minor. London, 1865. 

de Vogue . . de Vogue : Syrie Centrale ; Architecture civile et 

et religieuse, 2 vols, Paris, 1865-1877. 

Wadd. . . Waddington : Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de 

la Syrie. 

Wood . . Wood : Ruins of Palmyra. London, 1753. 



TO ^ 202 Main Library 








1 -month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405 

6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 

Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 


'ec'd circ. APR 2 6 [98; 

MAR 02 1989 




FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 12/80 BERKELEY CA 94720